Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORWICH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

SWAVESEY BYE-WAYS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 14 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Factory Inspectors

Mr. Lofthouse: asked the Secretary of State for Employment in which areas of the work of the Factory Inspectorate the proposed new factory inspectors will be employed.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The factory inspectors to be recruited from the current competition will be allocated to the inspectorate's field organisation. During and after their initial training the new inspectors will be visiting a wide range of industrial and other undertakings to give advice on health and safety and, where necessary, to enforce health and safety law.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the new recruitment allow the inspectorate to achieve its previous target for inspections, which was 15 per cent. of establishments per annum?

Mr. Gummer: The inspectorate is able to cover the ground which it wishes and feels it necessary to cover, because of the quality as well as the number of inspections. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the new computer arrangements which make this possible.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that the shortage of inspectors is making the task of those who remain in office extremely difficult? May I have an assurance that the new inspectors will be allocated throughout the country, including Leicester? The three inspectors at Leicester have an impossible task in dealing with the sweat shops, and this is worrying all parts of industry in the county.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would wish the allocations to be made by the

Health and Safety Executive. It will continue to do so where it feels that this is necessary. The change will mean that there will be more inspectors.

Mr. Evans: Despite the modest increase in inspectors, the levels in the field are still not up to those of 1979. Does the Minister agree that until we return to those levels the role of the inspectorate will not meet the requirements of a modern industrial society such as ours?

Mr. Gummer: If I thought that that were so, I should be recommending and encouraging an increase in numbers. I am concerned to ensure that the inspectorate does its job properly. I am convinced that it does and I am confident that it will have the resources to do so.

Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west midlands the so-called sweat shops are now the largest single source of new employment? If he orders the inspectorate to crack down on them, he will substantially reduce employment opportunities.

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend should not be led down the confusing path taken by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who continues to confuse the work of the Wages Inspectorate with the work of the Health and Safety Executive. There is a very low incidence of risk in the circumstances that he mentioned, because of the nature of the job. Those are not my views, but those of the Health and Safety Executive. I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than the executive.

European Community (Job Creation)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what plans or proposals he intends to put before his European ministerial colleagues to reduce unemployment within the European Economic Community.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I will be meeting my colleagues at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on Thursday to discuss, among other things, proposals for a medium-term programme for employment in the Community and, in particular, the support given by the social fund to young people's training and to areas of high unemployment.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State suggest to his colleagues that they adopt the scheme proposed by the European trade unions to operate a co-ordinated plan to increase expenditure on public works by 1 per cent., which, it is estimated, will improve employment over two years by between 4 million and 5 million? If not, does the right hon. Gentleman have some other scheme to put forward?

Mr. King: I had the pleasure of listening to representatives of international trade unions when they visited my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in her capacity as chairman of the summit meeting. I thought that the proposal, which was not fully explained, of an infrastructural programme was the less convincing part of their presentation. I shall certainly be talking to my colleagues in the European Community about the need to continue to ensure that Europe remains competitive and that we keep inflation down and public expenditure under control so that we have a chance to create more jobs in Europe again.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not raise false hopes? Is it really the EEC's duty to concern itself with matters of employment, which are surely mainly for employers in industry and commerce and, to a lesser extent, for the Government?

Mr. King: It is important for Europe to act in a concerted way and not in ways that might undermine the competitive efforts of individual countries. It is striking to observe how, in the past year, the Socialist Government of France have increasingly come to recognise, more effectively than the Opposition, the need for a sound financial and economic policy.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the continuous bleating by British Ministers that British workers are pricing themselves out of jobs, will the Secretary of State explain to his European colleagues and to the House why Britain has one of the highest unemployment rates, combined with one of the lowest wage economies in the whole of western Europe?

Mr. King: I take some pleasure in the fact that we do not have an unemployment rate of 18 per cent. as in Belgium, 17 per cent. as in Holland, or 15 per cent. as in Italy. The hon. Gentleman says that we have the highest unemployment rate in Europe. He would do the House a courtesy if he checked his figures first. As I said in my original answer, I shall be talking about the better use of the social fund. I take some pleasure from the fact that, to help with training schemes for young people, we are now receiving from Europe three times as much money and a far greater percentage share than the Labour party achieved when it was in government.

Mr. Fourth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that misguided attempts arbitrarily to impose a 35-hour working week on member states of the European Community can lead only to an increase in unit costs, a lack of competitiveness by the Community vis-a-vis other economies and, ultimately, a loss of jobs?

Mr. King: I took the opportunity—I hope that my hon. Friend will approve—of sending to my colleagues in the European Community what I believe is the whole of the academic research that has been done on this subject by the Policy Studies Institute. There is no evidence in that survey that a reduction in working time leads to increased employment. In some firms the response to shorter working time appeared to be to reduce employment as a means of obtaining some of the productivity increases needed to compensate for reductions in working time.

Mr. Wallace: In the context of the European social and regional funds, will the Secretary of State estimate how many jobs would have been created in the past five years if the Government had properly applied the principle of additionality?

Mr. King: The funds that we have received from Europe have been extremely helpful in sustaining higher expenditure than would otherwise have been possible. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that whereas when the Labour Government left office we received only 20 per cent. of the social fund, this year we shall receive 30 per cent. of the fund to provide help for a number of these important matters.

Mr. Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way not to get unemployment down would be to have no

truck whatsoever with some of the interventionist claptrap coming out of the Commission at the moment, such as Vredeling and the fifth directive? Will he commit himself to the House and other Europeans and say that we will have nothing to do with it? Even if he were so tempted—which I am sure he would not be—the vast majority that the Conservatives have will ensure that any such un-Conservative legislation is thrown out.

Mr. King: I am not always given to the type of diplomatic language that my hon. Friend uses on these matters. He will be aware that I have expressed—if I may put it more forcefully — the gravest reservations about these proposals. The responses that we have received to the consultation document do nothing to change the Government's or my impression of the damage that could be caused by many of these proposals.

Mr. John Smith: Before the Secretary of State sneers at the efforts made by trade unions and other Governments to promote policies of economic growth does he accept that the Government, after five years in office, have at no international summit or forum in the EEC advocated a policy of economic growth for this country or Europe as a whole? Since the Government have no proposals for tackling the millions of unemployed in Europe, will he adopt one of those proposals?

Mr. King: I notice that the Opposition are so divided at the moment that they do not like to recommend any proposal, but offer us any one of several. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made that point. I am not sneering at the trade union proposals. I said that the proposal for infrastructural expenditure was the least convincing part. He may know, if he saw the press release or my comments after the meeting, that the encouraging point about the meeting was the degree of agreement between the trade unions and the Governments involved, not least with the trade unions making it clear that people must accept the need for technological change if industry is to be competitive and if there are to be the maximum prospects for creating employment. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman invited me to comment on that point. I should like to endorse what they said.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest percentage rate of unemployment; and what are the numbers involved.

Mr. Tom King: On 10 May there were 3,084,457 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom. This corresponds to an unemployment rate of 12·9 per cent.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that those figures are appalling? When will the much vaunted economic recovery which the Government constantly parade filter into areas such as Merseyside, where 150,000 people are unemployed? Does he agree that the obscene policy of naked economic forces being pursued by the Government should be abandoned in the interests of the unemployed?

Mr. King: The House knows my views on this matter. Plainly, the present rate of unemployment is far too high. The Government have taken steps to ensure that, based on a sounder and more competitive economy, we can at last see the prospect of creating more jobs. Against that


background, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes, as I do, the evidence that, after three years of substantial job losses, in the final three quarters of last year there was a significant increase and about 200,000 more people are now in jobs.

Sir Dudley Smith: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm a statement that he made recently, that, if the British home industries could recapture the share of the market that they had a decade ago, about 1·25 million extra jobs would be created?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is correct. That is the figure. One can study the various industries involved. One simple statistic is the import penetration of foreign cars. Not many years ago—certainly in the memory of hon. Members—imports of foreign cars were about 10 per cent., but they are now over 50 per cent. That tells its own story. It is only by having an efficient and competitive industry that Britain can begin to have the opportunity to create the extra jobs that are needed.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Have not successive statements by Ministers raised the false hope that unemployment would be falling steadily by this time? With the recent increase in interest rates, together with the forecasts of even higher interest rates, can we expect any drop in the level of unemployment? What can the Secretary of State say to the unemployed about their prospects now?

Mr. King: I shall not comment on interest rates, save to say that increased interest rates will not be helpful.
In looking at the latest unemployment figures, I was struck by an encouraging rising figure for vacancies. Yesterday, during the short time that I spent in south Wales, I noticed that each of the firms that I visited expected to increase its labour force this year. There is significant evidence, even with some time lag, of a real increase in jobs.

Mr. Forman: When considering cost-effective measures to help the unemployed — particularly the long-term unemployed—will my right hon. Friend take early steps to expand the enterprise allowance scheme, which has proved worth while?

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that scheme. I believe that it is one of the most effective of the special employment measures that we have introduced. It has been extremely successful, and we are keeping under close review whether it will be possible to increase the funding for it.

Mr. Benn: In reality, do not the Government believe that mass unemployment is necessary to hold down wages and to boost profits? If profits are made, with the abolition of exchange control, will not many of those profits be exported, denying employment to people in Britain?

Mr. King: My memory goes back far enough to recall a certain Minister of Technology who tried to encourage productivity in this country. It is sad to see the right hon. Gentleman having to abandon the principles for which he once stood.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Most hon. Members would accept that unmeployment is one of the great tragedies that afflict our country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that disputes, such as the miners' strike — as a result of which the country is to be asked for £1·3 billion—take

place at the cost of other people's jobs, and that, unless the dispute is settled, other jobs will be lost to feed Mr. Scargill's ambitions?

Mr. King: The dispute is a tragedy in terms of the effect that it could have, the fact that many people are losing the earnings to which they are entitled and the fact that the economy of the country is not being strengthened. I believe it is symbolic that the NCB made the first delivery against the contract that it achieved for Durham coke. It is tragic that that coke did not come from Durham.

Mr. John Smith: It is within the memory of many hon. Members that not so long ago the Conservative party would have been deeply ashamed to preside over a situation in which 3 million people were unemployed. Will the Secretary of State answer one simple question: if the economy keeps recovering, why does unemployment keep rising?

Mr. King: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does no service to the real problems faced by the unemployed by trying to pretend that there is some simple wand that can be waved. The idea that this problem is faced uniquely by Conservative Governments — [Interruption.] I was challenged on the figures, so If shall repeat them, and at the same time correct one of them. The unemployment figures for the European Community are as follows. At a time when we have 12·9 per cent. unemployment, the figure for Belgium is 18·5 per cent., for the Netherlands 17·9 per cent., for Ireland 16·8 per cent. and for Italy— this is the correction—13·3 per cent.

Open Tech

Mr. Colvin: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many Open Tech projects are now in being.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): The Open Tech programme has now expanded to 75 projects. It will offer training opportunities for 25,000 supervisors and technicians in 1984–85 and twice that number in 1985–86. It is a fine example of what the Government are doing to promote training opportunities in this important field.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend's answer shows clearly that the Open Tech has completed its pilot stages with flying colours. Will he confirm that its courses are complementary to other training initiatives taken by the Manpower Services Commission and to efforts being made by the Department of Education and Science to bring forth initiatives in training such as the pick-up scheme? What discussion is there between my hon. Friend's Department and the Department of Education and Science to ensure that there is no wasteful duplication and overlap in vocational education and training?

Mr. Morrison: I know that my hon. Friend was present at the birth of the Open Tech, and I am grateful to him for the interest that he has taken in it so far. As he said, it has been a success. I assure him that it is intended to complement the pick-up and other schemes run by the Department of Education and Science. I am in contact with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that that is the case.

Young People (Jobs and Training)

Mr. Haslehurst: asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss new ways in which jobs and training for young people could be devised.

Mr. Tom King: I frequently meet the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss the progress of the commission's employment and training measures, including those which held young people.

Mr. Haselhurst: Is there not a whole host of what might be termed odd jobs which, if they were organised and aggregated, might provide a lot of real and worthwhile opportunities, especially for young people, if they were trained to meet those opportunities? Could not the MSC conduct an experiment along those lines to see whether it is possible to get a practical scheme under way?

Mr. King: There are several ways in which the MSC tries to encourage the means by which managing agents can help to pick up individual opportunities for young people in rural areas. There is more scope for imagination in that area. I shall certainly discuss that point with the chairman of the MSC.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Secretary of State aware that the £25 allowance that is currently paid to youngsters on the youth training scheme ought to be almost £40 if it had increased in line with wages or inflation in the past five years? Why does he not admit to the House and working people outside that the real aim of the scheme is to drive down the level of wages paid to young people to play elastoplast politics and to cover up the real level of youth unemployment?

Mr. King: The real aim of the youth training scheme is to give more than 250,000 young people—as it will be this year—the chance of a year of good training and work experience at the start of their working life. I am satisfied that that objective is being achieved. It is a training allowance, and my first concern is to ensure that all of those young people get the best training that we can obtain for them. I give the highest priority to that aim.

Mrs. Rumbold: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although many employers greatly welcome the introduction of the youth training scheme, the application forms for such schemes last year amounted to two or three pages which had to be filled in, but this year about 28 pages must be filled in? Will he reassure me that he will investigate that matter?

Mr. King: I announced to the House that we would have a consolidation of the scheme this year. I must tell my hon. Friend that what she described is not what I had in mind. I shall look into that aspect.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Secretary of State consider constructively discussing with his Scottish Office colleagues any proposals that might come from the Highlands of Scotland for improving MSC funding to provide greater youth opportunities for training in oil rig repair and maintenance?

Mr. King: The hon. Member knows that that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I certainly take note of what he has said.

Mr. Lawler: Returning to the original question of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr.

Haselhurst), and given initiatives like Instant Muscle, will my right hon. Friend consider amending the enterprise allowance scheme so as to help people under 18 coming off YTS schemes to go into business on their own, given their desire to do so?

Mr. King: The first and obvious difficulty is that people under 18 would not be able to enter into a legal contract, as required under the enterprise allowance scheme. That poses a real problem. My hon. Friend will know that the enterprise allowance scheme is extremely successful. At the moment demand is very large indeed and I do not think that we envisage extending the age category.

Mr. Sheerman: When the Minister meets the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to discuss jobs and training for young people, how will he defend his Government's action in sabotaging the European Commission proposal that everyone should have a right to two year's training? How can he do that when he knows that the chairman of the MSC is fully behind the proposal for two years' training, cashed in when the individual wants them? Why did his Government sink the European Commission proposal to give that to all people in Europe?

Mr. King: The hon. Member knows that in Germany, for instance, the training schemes on a two-year basis are employer-led to a large extent. The difference in this country is the degree to which the Government are leading the schemes. I should like to see ways in which employers could take forward the training initiative. I think certain Opposition Members would be willing to concede that the YTS has been a remarkable success in many areas. There is now an opportunity to build with employers further schemes to improve training provision.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Jim Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest number of people unemployed; and how many of these are over 50 years of age.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): On 5 April, the latest date for which information by age is available, out of a total of 3,107,682 unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom, 575,243 were aged 50 years and over.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the Minister for the figure he has just given, but is he aware that in my constituency there are two large industrial estates where the level of unemployment is 25 per cent., and that of those who are long-term unemployed a great number are over 50 years of age? An example is Mr. Williams, who came to see me on Saturday to tell me that despite being retrained on an MSC course he cannot get a job; everywhere he goes he is told, "Sony, you are too old." Does common humanity not demand that the Minister ought to increase the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for people like Mr. Williams?

Mr. Clark: I do not think the hon. Member is entirely right about the unemployment rate in his constituency, which is actually close to the national average. What is true is that the plight of unemployed persons over 50 is tragic. Yet I do not share the hon. Member's pessimism. I believe that they constitute a reservoir of talent and


experience which will be of great value when demand picks up. As to his question about increasing supplementary benefit, as he well knows, this has been costed at £90 million. It is a matter of allocating and determining the priorities of resources. Tranches of £100 million at a time, however eloquent the special pleading, would put the general allocation of resources into disarray.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the over 50-year-olds are out of work because of restrictive practices, high rates of inflation and strikes in steel, in transport, and in various other industries, particularly engineering, over many years? Does he agree that the coal strike will also result in redundancies and that, sadly, many 50-year-olds will not enjoy the substantial benefits which the miners will enjoy if they happen to find themselves out of work as a result of their own actions?

Mr. Clark: Yes; as my hon. Friend says, they are out of work through no fault of their own. This is what makes their plight particularly tragic.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the over 50-year-olds can apply to the community programme, will the Minister give the House an assurance that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is impressing upon the Treasury the need to ensure that next year moneys are made available for a dramatic increase in the number of places available under the community programme? Is he aware that we need many more community-based programmes next year, particularly in my constituency of Cumbria?

Mr. Clark: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the total amount of taxpayers' money devoted to special employment measures is nearly £2 billion. However eloquent the special pleading for particular programmes, he must appreciate that allocation of funds to the programme is determined as a whole. The community programme certainly performs a very useful function, but it would not be right for me to give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that in the reservoir to which he referred many thousands of people over 50 are drowning in poverty and misery? Is he further aware that that group contains an enormous amount of skill and experience which an intelligent Government would use for the benefit of this country? Does he appreciate that those people are desperate for jobs and that it is time for a massive change of policy that would get them back to work?

Mr. Clark: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which confirms my view that the over-50s group constitutes a substantial body of talent and experience. We hope that employers will reconsider their recruitment practices to take advantage of that group, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is one of the most valuable in the labour market.

Job Release Scheme

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the operation of the job release scheme.

Mr. Alan Clark: Yes, Sir. With the other special employment measures on which the Government expect to spend some £2 billion in the current financial year, the job

release scheme makes a valuable contribution both to helping the unemployed and to facilitating early retirement for people who fulfil the criteria of the scheme.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is strong public support for a reduction in the age at which people become eligible for the scheme and does he agree that such a reduction would be desirable?

Mr. Clark: . The terms of the job release scheme, like those of the other special employment measures, come up for review annually. I have received a number of representations from hon. Members on both sides of the House along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I must tell him, however, that spending on the scheme this year will be £314 million compared with an outturn of £260 million last year. We must judge the extent to which still further resources should be made available.

Mr. John Smith: Is the Minister not aware that the Government recently changed the scheme by reducing the qualifying age by two years so that many people who had relied on coming within the scheme were disqualified? Is he aware that the great resentment throughout the country has been reflected in representations to Members in all parts of the House and will the Government urgently consider restoring the scheme to what it was when many people looked at it with interest?

Mr. Clark: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably recall, the Labour Government started the scheme and changed it three times in the first two years. I have already said that expenditure on the scheme has risen — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is very talkative——

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: I thought that the Minister was giving way.

Mr. Clark: It is possible that the hon. Gentleman is trying to solicit a compliment from the House because the Bolsover pit is the only one in North Derbyshire that is working, which reflects the rapport which the hon. Gentleman must enjoy with his constituents.
Whenever the terms of a scheme are altered some people are bound to find themselves on just the wrong side of the eligibility limit. My sympathies go out to such people, but I cannot adapt the rules to accommodate people who fall outside the changed rules by a small margin.

Wages Orders (Breaches)

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be in breach of the wages orders during the last available 12 months; and how many of those were prosecuted.

Mr. Gummer: One worker or more was found to have been underpaid in 9,842 of the establishments inspected in 1983. Payment of the arrears due was secured by the inspectorate in 92 per cent. of cases. It was found necessary to prosecute two employers.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Minister aware that that level of prosecution is derisory? Does not show that employers


feel no obligation to obey the law and is it not clear that abiding by the law is becoming purely a voluntary matter? Will the Minister enforce the law, and if so, when? Is he allowing the law to fall into disrepute and disuse so that he can abolish wages councils more easily?

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman were right in his argument, he would be right to ask those questions. Ninety four per cent. of workers whose position was investigated were found to be paid the minimum rates or higher. As those investigated were liable to be affected by underpayments and underpayment was not found in 94 per cent. of the cases, that shows that it is restricted to a few people. I remind the hon. Gentleman that arrears are paid in 92 per cent. of cases to the 6 per cent. who are underpaid. The Government certainly insist on the law being carried out.

Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statutorily enforced minimum wage level, many hon. Members on the Government side of the House think it absurd and ridiculous that organisations or firms with two or three employees, who know the state of the company perfectly well, should be forced to pay a wage that is above what the company can stand?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has pointed out a fact which Opposition Members would do well to remember. There is no point in driving people out of work by fixing a level of wages that employers cannot pay. That is why I have suggested to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that their job is to consider the figures and to study the facts before they shout about the success of the wages councils.

Apprentices

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist for the rescuing of apprentices left stranded by employers going out of business; and how many apprentices have been helped by such measures in recent years.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Government support is currently available through industry training organisations to help employers recruit and complete the training of apprentices who are made redundant. About 16,500 such apprentices have been helped over the past five years.

Mr. Montgomery: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to help apprentices who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in that unfortunate position? Can he tell us by how much the adoption grants have been increased?

Mr. Morrison: I assure my hon. Friend that we take the plight of redundant apprentices very seriously. The maximum figure for the adoption grant has been increased from £1,500 to £2,250.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister tell us what he is doing for the apprentices who cannot work because pits are closed by the National Coal Board? Is he aware that in Yorkshire, where apprentices are not on strike and turn up and sign on for work, the Department of Employment classes them as unemployed, yet in Nottinghamshire they are classed as not unemployed? Can the Minister explain why, in one county apprentices benefit while the others do not, although the pits are only five miles apart, and why his Department refuses to do anything about it? Why is there such anomaly and maladministration?

Mr. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman realises, it would be better to have no industrial action in pits throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the difficulties faced by mining apprentices would not arise if that were the case.

Youth Training Schemes

Mr. Blair: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made on renewal of youth training schemes.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The renewal of appropriate youth training schemes is currently being negotiated to ensure that sufficient suitable places are available to meet the needs of eligible young people in the coming year. I am satisfied that those arrangements are progressing well.

Mr. Blair: How will the Minister ensure that cheap labour schemes will be weeded out when the training schemes are renewed? What assurance can he give the House that the paramount criterion for renewing the scheme is the value to the young person of the training involved, rather than value to the employer and cheap labour?

Mr. Morrison: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House earlier, this is a year of consolidation for the youth training scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the quality element of training should be of paramount importance.

Enterprise Allowance

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Employment how long is the waiting time in the east midlands before applicants for the enterprise allowance receive their grant.

Mr. Alan Clark: Because of the success of the scheme, the average waiting time in the east midlands, from initial inquiry to acceptance, had increased to an average of about 19 weeks. As my hon. Friend may know, I announced on 1 May that the number of places available would be increased by 60 per cent. to 1,000 a week for the next three months, and this should help to reduce waiting lists.

Mr. Carlisle: Although this is an excellent scheme to help the unemployed start their own business, is my hon. Friend aware that the growing waiting list has caused great frustration? For that reason, the additional funds for the scheme are welcome. What impact will they have on the waiting time?

Mr. Clark: I believe that the extra funds are already having an impact. The effect is that a further 5,000 places are being brought forward until July. However, this was an interim measure, and we continue to look closely at the possibilities for taking advantage of the scheme's popularity. I share my hon. Friend'd enthusiasm for it. I hope that neither of us will be disappointed when the decision is announced.

Youth Training Scheme

Mr. Bermingham: asked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of young people who will finish their year of youth training scheme and will not subsequently find employment.

Mr. Peter Morrison: It is not possible at present to estimate how many youngsters will find jobs on completion of their training programme. Some 90 per cent. of those joining the youth training scheme in 1983 will not have completed their training before August this year.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that to offer a young person a place on a training programme for one year and then to cast him back on the dole queue is nothing more than an indictment on our society, and that, in reality, that is what will happen in the forthcoming period?

Mr. Morrison: I certainly do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his question. I agree entirely that the youth training scheme is designed to prepare youngsters for the world of work. That is precisely what it is doing. If the hon. Gentleman were to come with me and visit places round the country where the scheme operates, he would find that the youngsters would say that to him as well as to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be meeting President Reagan for discussions and giving a working dinner for him and ministerial colleagues at No. 10 Downing street.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister confirm that at the moment there are armed troops of the United States on British soil, authorised to use their arms in London? Will she always agree to any request by President Reagan? What other countries will be allowed to bring their troops here and to use their arms? Would tonight not be an ideal opportunity to discuss dual control with President Reagan, for once?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question was somewhat confused from beginning to end. He raised two points. First, we are, of course, ultimately responsible for the security of statesmen visiting London. We do not discuss security matters. Decisions are taken after full consultation and in the light of all the circumstances. I am advised that in this case no precedent was broken. With regard to cruise missiles, I have already frequently answered questions on dual key control and made the position perfectly clear. President Reagan made a statement and we have both looked at the control mechanisms and the control agreements for cruise missiles. The fact, as he has said, is that no missile could be fired from this soil without the agreement of the British Prime Minister.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of repeating in the House her characterisation of the smear that her Government would be forced by the EEC to impose VAT on food as absolute poppycock? Will she extend that characterisation to embrace the suggestion that her Government might remove interest relief from mortgages?

The Prime Minister: Yes, gladly. We get this smear and scare about VAT on food at every election because the Opposition like to take attention away from any discussion of their own policies. With regard to mortgage interest relief, I gladly respond to my hon. Friend's invitation. Any suggestion that we would remove mortgage interest relief is absolute poppycock.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: In view of the Prime Minister's scathing remarks about the miners and the events that are taking place with the picketing of mines, does she agree that the reasons for this lie at the door of the Government? Will she bring to the attention of her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the Cabinet, the fact that they are responsible for stopping 4 million people from going to work?

The Prime Minister: Any remarks that I have made are of total condemnation of violence and intimidation. I understand that that condemnation is echoed on the Labour Benches, at least in certain parts. With regard to the merit of the dispute, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the miners have been offered pay increases higher than those the power, gas and water workers have accepted and which are 25 per cent. above the average industrial wage. This Government have poured £2 million a day in investment into the mines so that the miners may have safer and more productive pits in which to work, there have been no compulsory redundancies, and the money supplied for voluntary redundancies is the best ever. This Government have also seen to it that those industries which would like to convert from oil to coal are subsidised to do so, and they were responding well until the strike came along. The truth is that by striking the miners are losing jobs, not protecting, them.

Mr. Fallon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Tyne and Wear county council is giving £100,000 to striking miners and their families and that my county council of Durham is giving a further £25,000? Is it not outrageous that my constituents, who are already subsidising miners in high-cost pits through taxes, should now have to support through the rates miners who are idle of their own accord?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not that the councils have any money to give away, because they have only the money that they take from taxpayers. As my hon. Friend said, the National Coal Board is subsidising the National Union of Mineworkers and all who work in the mining industry to the extent of £130 per person per week.

Mr. Dubs: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Prime Minister aware of the increasing concern that American ships carrying sea-based cruise missiles will shortly be using British ports? Is she aware that this concern is based partly on the fact that such weapons are beyond verification and therefore represent a major escalation in the arms race? What assurances can


she give the House that the House and the country will be given their chance to say whether ships carrying such weapons should be allowed to call at British ports?

The Prime Minister: We belong to the Western Alliance, and there is nothing unusual in ships carrying nuclear weapons calling at British ports — vessels carrying Polaris do it regularly.

Mr. Churchill: On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Normandy landings, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute not only to those British, American and Canadian service men who lost their lives in the liberation of Europe but to those Czechs, Hungarians and Poles who fought at our side but who did not see their countries liberated?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to all who led the attack on the second front in Europe to free Europe. I am sure that those countries in Europe will never forget what they owe to the people whom my hon. Friend mentioned and to the whole of the British Commonwealth, all of whom made strenuous efforts to restore freedom and justice to Europe.

Mr. Kinnock: I warmly endorse the right hon. Lady's last remarks on the occasion of this commemoration of the marvellous victory for liberty in Europe. Does the right hon. Lady recall that at yesterday's Euro-election press conference she showed that she now depends entirely on the presidency of Chancellor Kohl to be able to obtain the £457 million due to Britain and, if that is the case, does it mean that she expects no settlement at the summit at Fontainebleau?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Chancellor Kohl was the chairman of the Stuttgart conference under which the rebate was agreed in the Community. I did not depend wholly upon him and I regard this as an agreement reached by all Heads of Government, which should be honoured before the end of the year.

Mr. Kinnock: I am sorry. Either the Prime Minister does not understand the questions repeatedly put by myself and many others about this £457 million rebate, or she is deliberately trying to evade them. Does she not recall that it is now four and a half years since she said at the Dublin summit that she was no longer prepared to play Sister Bountiful to the European Community, that it was our money, and that a permanent and just settlement must be secured? Does she not think that it is a bit feeble to be extending the deadline yet again, for the third time in a year, relying entirely on German faith and German honour—both of which I fully respect—and is this what she means by a strong voice in Europe?

The Prime Minister: A strong voice in Europe has already obtained refunds to this country of £2,000 million.

Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady is still evading the fact that she has paid net contributions of £5,000 million. By comparison with that, the rebates are starting to look a little slim.

The Prime Minister: Then why did the right hon. Gentleman's Government not renegotiate and make provision? They did not. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot get over is that we obtained £2,000 million for this country. What the right hon. Gentleman wants to do is to withdraw from Europe, and lose £2,000 million.

Mr. Fairbairn: Has my right hon. Friend noted the disgraceful announcement by the Government of Zimbabwe that in future journalists are to be imprisoned if they criticise the regime, unless they are able to prove the truth of their criticisms, and does she not think that Opposition Members who have not condemned that statement would spend most of their life in gaol if that were the rule here?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. and learned Friend will know, I do not comment on statements before I have seen them in full. I have not seen this in full, and therefore I shall be very careful before commenting.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Prime Minister not agree that her meeting with Mr. Botha gave succour to a hated regime and credibility to every racist, and does she not now feel tainted?

The Prime Minister: No. I believe that it is right to talk to Heads of Government, although one fundamentally disagrees with their policies. I believe that that view has widespread support in the country.

Mr. Wareing: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: Does the right hon. Lady agree with me that it would be gross hypocrisy if she were to continue to hector people to obey the rule of law if the Government at the same time refuse to acknowledge the International Labour Organisation's decision that this Government are in contravention of international law in banning trade unionism among people who are staffing GCHQ, the only country in the EEC to do such a thing, which puts us in league with Chile, Turkey and other dictatorships of which she is obviously fond?

The Prime Minister: That is not what the ILO said. I do not believe that we are in contravention of the ILO convention. What the ILO said in our view flouted convention 151, which has also been ratified by us, although not by everyone.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to think about the horrible increase in the problems of drug misuse and abuse, and particularly to consider whether it is now growing to such proportions that it is necessary to identify a specific Minister responsible for the many departmental responsibilities to tackle the problem?

The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's horror at any increase in the use or abuse of drugs. They are one of the scourges of our society. I believe that police responsibilities must stay with the Home Office. Health matters are adequately catered for by Health Service Ministers.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 5 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the whole country will wish to honour the memory of those who took part in the D-day landings and thus helped to liberate Europe from Nazi slavery? Would it not be


appropriate if all the countries that took part in the wartime alliance against Nazism started getting together again to stop the suicidal nuclear arms race?

The Prime Minister: We are trying to have more dialogue with countries across the European divide. The Western countries did not walk out of the nuclear disarmament talks—the Soviet Union did.

South African Prime Minister (Visit)

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a brief statement about the visit of the South African Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on Saturday 2 June.
We had over five hours of discussions. I was accompanied by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Minister of State. The meeting was a working one, and the discussions were comprehensive and candid. They covered the problems of southern Africa as a whole, including Namibia. There was considerable discussion of the internal situation in South Africa. I made clear to Mr. Botha our desire to see peaceful solutions to all the region's problems.
On Namibia, we agreed that early independence for Namibia was desirable and should be achieved as soon as possible under peaceful conditions. We also agreed that all foreign forces should be withdrawn from the countries in southern Africa so that their peoples can settle their destinies without outside interference. The withdrawal of South African forces from Angola is an important first step in this process.
On the internal situation in South Africa, I expressed our strongly-held views on apartheid. I told Mr. Botha of my particular concern at the practice of forced removals and raised the question of the continued detention of Mr. Nelson Mandela. Mr. Botha gave me an account of his government's recent constitutional measures and of the appointment of a Cabinet committee to make proposals for the political future of the black population outside the homelands.
I believe that the South African Prime Minister now understands much more clearly where Her Majesty's Government stand on all the major issues. My talks with Mr. Botha are part of the process through which we and other western and African countries must continue to press for the sort of changes that we all want to see in southern Africa.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I thank the Prime Minister for responding to my request for a statement about her discussions with Prime Minister Botha.
Is the Prime Minister aware that her invitation to and reception for Mr. Botha at Chequers gave enormous satisfaction to the South African Government and to the friends of apartheid, and caused grave offence to millions of people in Britain, throughout the Commonwealth and many other parts of the world?
Is the right hon. Lady further aware that reports of her meeting with Prime Minister Botha published and broadcast in South Africa differ so radically from the reports published in Britain that they are an insult to her and to the spokespersons who made the reports on her behalf, especially since I and my right hon. and hon. Friends recognise that as an individual the right hon. Lady is strong in her condemnation of the vile system of apartheid?
This is the first visit by a South African Prime Minister to Britain for 23 years. It constitutes a diplomatic coup for the South African Government. Can the right hon. Lady explain why, unlike her three Conservative predecessors in that period, she issued an invitation to Prime Minister Botha? What has changed in this Government's attitude

compared with the attitude taken by previous Conservative Governments? Was there any consultation with our Commonwealth partners before the Prime Minister's visit? If not, why not?
While the benefit to South Africa is obvious, can the right hon. Lady identify any compensating gains either for the cause of human rights and political freedom in South Africa, or for the cause of human rights, political freedom and self-determination in the countries of southern Africa? Will the right hon. Lady affirm that no discussion of arms supply — including the selling of the Coastguarder aircraft—took place during the meeting at Chequers? Will she take this opportunity not only publicly to affirm her detestation of and opposition to apartheid — [Interruption]—which is clearly not shared by all her hon. Friends on the Back Benches—but to tell the House what action she intends to take to back her well-advertised words of disapproval? What measures does she intend to take to stop South African dirty tricks operations from the embassy in London?
On Namibia, can the right hon. Lady reaffirm that there has been no change in the Government's opposition to any linkage between Cuban troop withdrawals from Angola and the independence of Namibia, and no change in the Government's insistence that United Nations Security Council resolution 435 must be the basis for a transition to independence in Namibia?
Will the right hon. Lady tell us—[Interruption]—as she takes these matters much more seriously than many of her Back Benchers — whether Prime Minister Botha indicated in any way whether he felt that withdrawal of South African forces from Angola was an important first step—and I emphasise "first step"—in the process.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that her decision to invite Prime Minister Botha was wrong, and remains wrong? Does she further accept that nothing was conveyed on Saturday that could not have been equally clearly and forcefully conveyed by means other than an invitation and accommodation by the Prime Minister of apartheid? Will not her invitation be seen here and elsewhere as an act of appeasement?
I hope that the right hon. Lady's future actions will demonstrate the strength of her opposition to apartheid and also that her view on Namibia is implacable so that she can prove those who think that she has been appeasing South African opinion to be absolutely wrong.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your ruling. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has called me a Fascist. I expect him to apologise and to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not quite sure who the hon. Member is——

Mr. Terlezki: The right hon. Gentleman called me a Fascist.

Mr. Kaufman: Conservative Members have been heckling my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on racialist grounds. They have been uttering Fascist noises, and I do not withdraw what I said.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a phrase that we wish to hear in the Chamber. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly withdraw the word "Fascist" on your direction, Mr. Speaker. I do not withdraw the word "racialist".

Mr. James Tinn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) say that he applied the term collectively to a number of Conservative Members.

Mr. Speaker: It matters not whether it was applied to a single hon. Member or collectively. It was still out of order.

The Prime Minister: I am constantly urged by Opposition Members to have dialogue with countries whose internal policies are not ours and with whose internal policies we fundamentally disagree because they deny human rights. I do not see how they can urge me to have dialogue with the Soviet Union and not with South Africa, It is a characteristic example of double standards.
With regard to it being the first visit for 23 years, I remind the leader of the Opposition that Prime Minister Botha had an official invitation to Portugal and was received by the Socialist Prime Minister and the President and had successful talks there; that he then went to Switzerland, where he was received by the President of that country; and that today he is in Bonn, where he is being received by Chancellor Kohl. Does the right hon. Gentleman want us to be the only country which is not talking to South Africa, although it has enormous strategic importance to this country? [Interruption.] I suppose that strategic importance is of little concern to him.
No request for arms was made. As for the embassy in London, Mr. Botha and the South African Government are well aware of our view that the diplomatic rules must be upheld and embassies used specifically for that purpose.
I made clear our view that United Nations resolution 435 is the way ahead. It will be clear from what I said that we agree that it is best for all foreign troops to be withdrawn from southern Africa.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's final question is that the decision to invite the Prime Minister here and to talk to him was right.

Mr. Julian Amery: In view of the crisp intervention of the Leader of the Oppostion, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that the constitutional process might be advantaged if the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) were to return? Will she confirm that her reference to all foreign forces in southern Africa included the Cubans and Angolans?

The Prime Minister: I was so referring by the use of the phrase "all foreign troops" from southern Africa. Although we do not have a specific linkage, we believe that that withdrawal should take place in parallel with independence for Namibia.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Prime Minister accept that those of us who believe that the visit was a profound mistake are nevertheless grateful that the South African Prime Minister was slipped in and out of this counry without ceremony like some undesirable package? Is she surprised—[Interruption.] I do not propose to make myself heard above a babble.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I only mentioned that David Owen went to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) kindly to refrain from making constant interruptions from a sedentary position. They are boring the whole House.

Mr. Steel: Was the Prime Minister surprised at the outcome of the propaganda in South Africa relating to Mr. Botha's visit, or was it as she expected?
I have three questions for the right hon. Lady. First, does she intend that the United Nations timetable for Namibian independence should be kept to? Although there is reference to "early independence," may we be told whether any progress was made on that? Secondly, what answer did she get to her questions about the detention of Nelson Mandela? Thirdly, does her reference to the future of the black population outside the homelands means that she is falling for the line of setting up puppet black states within the territory of South Africa?

The Prime Minister: I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I note also that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) visited South Africa when he was the Labour Foreign Secretary and, I believe, had conversations with Mr. Botha at that time.
Independence for Namibia, we say, must come under resolution 435 — that is, in a way acceptable to the international community—and I do not believe that that will occur until there is, in parallel, also the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. I have nothing further to report regarding Mr. Nelson Mandela.
As for my reference to constitutional changes—and one must recognise that there have been more such changes during the lifetime of the present Government in South Africa than under any previous Government there—a Cabinet Committee has been set up and the phrase which I used, which was
to look at the constitutional future of the blacks outside the homelands",
is one of the terms of reference of that committee.

Mr. Terlezki: In view of President Reagan's offer to the Russians to negotiate on the non-use of conventional arms in Europe and his preparedness to halt or even to reverse the deployment of cruise missiles, does my right hon. Friend agree that the President is adopting a reassuring approach to disarmament, peace and security in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The Western Alliance has the same approach to peace with freedom and justice in Europe and wishes naturally to enter into negotiations with the Soviet Union to secure peace with justice and freedom at a lower level of weaponry and, therefore, a lower level of expenditure than at present. We would very much like the Soviet Union to return to the nuclear negotiating table and to negotiate on large ballastic missile weapons and intermediate weapons.

Mr. Robert Litherland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was the question of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Terlezki) relevant to the statement?

Mr. Speaker: I heard nothing irrelevant in it.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: When the Prime Minister is in France tomorrow, will she reflect——

Mr. David Winnick: She will not.

Mr. Rees: I shall be there and I shall reflect on the issue that I am about to raise with the right hon. Lady. Will she bear in mind that Mr. Botha spoke out during the war against the involvement of his soldiers and airmen in fighting against Germany? Indeed, he spoke out vividly in support of Hitler.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember also that many South Africans came and fought in the battle of Europe.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend consider asking Mr. Chernenko to come here for conversations with her? If he comes, will she discuss with him how Dr. Sakharov is getting on? Finally, will she ask Mr. Chernenko about his dirty tricks?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Not yet". However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is going to Moscow to see Mr. Gromyko in July. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising once again the position of Dr. Sakharov, who was exiled from Moscow to Gorki and is in need of medical treatment, as is his wife. That is a reminder that we have dialogue with countries which have no human rights as we understand them.

Mr. Winnick: Why does the Prime Minister not recognise that South Africa is different from other dictatorships—the Opposition deplore all dictatorships—in that it is the only system in which people are discriminated against from birth onwards because of the colour of their skin? That is why South Africa has been condemned time and time again. Will she bear in mind also that the South Africans who died in the second world war while fighting against Nazi Germany were, in the same way as all the others who fought against Hitler, fighting against a racial tyranny which today is modelled in South Africa?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are many in South Africa who are working for a system in which people are not discriminated against by the colour of their skin. I am the first to say that discrimination because of the colour of one's skin is totally and utterly wrong. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is urging upon me dialogue with a country which denies to all people freedom of speech and freedom of worship, and that, too, we condemn.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend understand that the continuation of the Gleneagles agreement means that sport is discouraged with South Africa because of conditions whereby selection takes place on the basis of race, colour or ethnic origin? Did she reassure Mr. Botha that if those conditions do not exist for certain sports consideration might be given to excluding those sports from the agreement? Will she take it from one who has recently returned from South Africa that the English rugby team is doing a magnificant ambassadorial job for Britain in promoting multiracial sport in that society?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware that there are people in South Africa who are promoting multiracial sport, and in some cases it exists. I say to my hon. Friend, as I said to Prime Minister Botha, that I do not see any possibility at present of revising the Gleneagles agreement.

Mr. Donald Stewart: What quid pro quo did the British Government receive from the enormous benefit that accrued from the Botha visit? Is the Prime Minister aware that a request for armaments was unnecessary, as there is abundant evidence that the armed forces of South Africa are amply sustained through the activities of the British and the Israelis?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we have honoured the United Nations embargo against South Africa, and we shall continue to do so. No request for arms was made. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not continue to make that accusation against the British Government.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend remember how much condemnation there was from members of the Labour Cabinet, the Labour Members on the Opposition Benches and the Labour party throughout the country when the Labour Foreign Minister went to South Africa and spoke to Mr. P. W. Botha?

The Prime Minister: There cannot have been any, because it must have been the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.

Mr. Tony Benn: Did the Prime Minister specifically raise with Mr. Botha the well-documented examples of activities by the South African security services from their embassy in London? Have all the links between British and South African security services been broken? Has the right hon. Lady given instructions that the British security services are to prevent a repetition of what has happened in the past?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in the House we do not discuss security. We have frequently made it clear to the South African Government that an embassy is for diplomatic purposes only. They are well aware of that, especially since the Libyan episode.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that every year many thousands of seamen from Britain and other Western powers traverse the sea route around the Cape? Is it not vitally important for the well-being of those seamen that there should be an efficient air-sea rescue service of long-range aircraft, backed up by Sea King helicopters, to lift the people who become casualties at sea? Is that not outside the scope of an arms embargo? Would it not be of benefit to us all to reinforce the air-sea rescue services around the Cape?

The Prime Minister: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. South Africa is of great strategic importance to this country. She fully discharged her maritime responsibilities under international law, and we are grateful for that.

Ms. Clare Short: Did Prime Minister Botha ask the Prime Minister to close the African National Congress office in London? Will the right hon. Lady give the House an assurance that that office will be free to operate throughout her term of office?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear that we cannot possibly close offices such as the ANC or the PLO, unless anyone there contravenes our law.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if general trade sanctions were imposed on South Africa, and for as long as South Africa continues to be politically ostracised, the nationalist voice in that


country will be raised in defence of apartheid? Is it not much better, if we are to encourage progress socially and politically in that country, to talk face to face, as my right hon. Friend has done, rather than talk back to back, as the United Nations often does?

The Prime Minister: Yes; I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the many people in South Africa who are working for the same things that we are welcome the visit to this country.

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Who does the Prime Minister think obtained most advantage from the visit, Mr. Botha or herself?

The Prime Minister: I expect that we both secured advantage from the visit, but I happen to believe that we should not restrict our discussions to those with whom we agree.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the latest argument put up against the discussions that she has been reporting on in some church and other circles—that apartheid is, and this is the word, "institutionalised" in South Africa and that it is exceptional for that reason? Is not Marxism institutionalised in the Soviet Union? Is it not——

Mr. Dave Nellist: That is not Marxism, mate.

Sir William van Straubenzee: How greatly we should miss our resident comedian. Is it not as right to talk to one regime which is abhorrent as it is to another?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with him. Marxism denies freedom of speech and worship and prosecutes those people who practise either, and yet we are asked to talk to them and we do.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that we are not fooled by every cheer that comes from the Tory Benches every time that South Africa is mentioned? She let the cat out of the bag with one word in her statement. It is the strategic importance of southern Africa to big business in this country and elsewhere which matters far more than the rights of working people, black or any other colour, in that country. Why does she not admit that it is the investments of Britons in South Africa, and the profit men in the mines and elsewhere which are uppermost in her mind, not banning orders, pass laws or the detention of Nelson Mandela? That is the sugar icing on the cake.

The Prime Minister: It has been our experience that the overwhelming majority of British people like their freedom in this country to be well and truly defended, and strategic interest means something to them.

Mr. John Stokes: In view of the importance of the Cape route to the freedom of the Western world, did my right hon. Friend discuss with Mr. Botha defence matters and closer co-operation in defence between our two countries?

The Prime Minister: No, we did not go into those matters. On the whole, we were discussing the position in southern Africa, but naturally one discussed the way in which South Africa discharges its maritime duties under international law.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Is the Prime Minister aware that on these Benches —

[Interruption] When my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was Foreign Secretary he would have been in gross dereliction of his duty if he had not had discussions with the South African Government to try to achieve a settlement of the UDI problem in Rhodesia and the Namibian crisis which existed then. What was the reaction of the South African Prime Minister to the right hon. Lady's representations about Nelson Mandela? Has she had any discussions with President Reagan about the settlement in Namibia? Are there any proposals from the American Government on the Namibian settlement, as has been publicised in some newspapers?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the answer is "No". I shall see President Reagan this evening. With regard to the earlier part of the question, as I said in one of the answers I gave before Prime Minister Botha came, South Africa was helpful to us in securing a settlement of the Zimbabwe matter, a settlement that eluded the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right. hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of showing the South African Prime Minister what we think about apartheid is to have him here and to tell him face to face? Will she look for an opportunity to go to South Africa if invited—preferably with a multiracial group—and say the same thing there? Will she also make it plain to hon. Members that, instead of just expressing their opposition to the South African Prime Minister's visit, they could have expressed as much pleasure in greeting Chief Gatsha Buthelezi when he came here two weeks ago with virtually no publicity?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has great personal experience of South African matters. I agree that it is best for us in this country to say to Prime Minister Botha and his Ministers that we do not see how one can discriminate between people on the basis of the colour of their skin, and that that is totally wrong. I believe that it is effective when we make that clear, and that it is effective when the Prime Minister travels across Europe and it is made clear to him in all the countries through which he travels.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Does the Prime Minister honestly believe that she was able to influence Prime Minister Botha on any aspect of South African policy? If not, does the right hon. Lady not accept that the invitation to Prime Minister Botha to visit this country was an insult that the British peope could well have done without?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Was there any particular significance in my right hon. Friend's earlier reply when she said that the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia would be an important first step in the process there? Does that mean, for example, that the timetable for South African withdrawal has been brought forward? That would be very welcome.

The Prime Minister: No. II referred to the withdrawal of South African troops from Angola, which is nearly complete.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How vigorously and with how much determination did the Prime Minister press for the release of Nelson Mandela? What did Mr. Botha say in reply? Did he say that he would review the position? Did he say that he would take note of what the Prime Minister said and discuss it with his colleagues, or did he say nothing and ignore what the right hon. Lady had to say?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that they take a very different view of that case from the view that we take. I have nothing further to report, other than the fact that I raised the question of Mr. Nelson Mandela with the South African Prime Minister.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that most of us think that she was right to talk to Mr. Botha? Will she agree that this House concentrates upon the problems of South Africa as though it was the only oppressive regime on that continent? Would not the House spend its time well if it concentrated on the problems of the black African country of Zimbabwe, where Bishop Muzorewa has been in prison because he lost the election and where people in Matabeleland have been murdered solely because they belonged to certain tribe? Apartheid is not the only murder. What goes on in the tribal system of Africa sometimes makes South Africa seem one of the more virtuous countries on that continent.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises some relevant points, and the House would do well to consider them.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there not something bogus about the hue and cry from the Opposition about the visit of Mr. Botha when not a whisper was raised against the visit of the President of Israel? In moral and physical terms, there is very little to choose between those two regimes.

The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what my hon. Friend says about the two regimes. I welcomed the President of Israel to London and had very helpful conversations with him, and I had long and interesting conversations with Mr. Botha.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Opposition talk about the homelands and South Africa, and object to the Venda nation having autonomy and independence, they are guilty of double standards? Many of the same voices call out for independence and autonomy for the Scottish nation.

The Prime Minister: I shall not involve myself in that argument at present.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word "Fascist" has just been used in connection with myself. Could the hon. Gentleman who used that word clarify what he said? If he said what my hon. Friends thought that he said, would he withdraw that word?

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Were you saying earlier that to describe someone as a Fascist is unparliamentary? Is it not a fact that those who condone racial tyranny, those who find excuses to invite here the Prime Minister of a regime which is based on constitutionalised racial tyranny, and those who support

such measures, may well, in the view of a number of Opposition Members, be Fascists? Why should we not be allowed to say so?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need any help on this matter. Every hon. Member knows that the phrase poses dishonour — [Interruption.] The phrase has a connotation in this country which is well known, and I do not think that it should be used in the House. If the hon. Gentleman used that phrase, I ask him to withdraw it, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Did the hon. Gentleman use that phrase?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Winnick: I shall not take into account the baying from Tory Members. We know their views about South Africa.

Mr. Speaker: That is beside the point. If the hon. Gentleman used that phrase, will he, in the light of what I have said, withdraw it? I did not hear it myself. If he used it, will he, in honour, withdraw it?

Dr. M. S. Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) exhibits all the manifestations of Fascism. I say that in all seriousness. Whatever connotations one puts on that term is another matter. The hon. Gentleman is an authoritarian. He believes in the kind of racist regime——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify the use of a word which I have just ruled is not parliamentary.

Dr. Miller: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I shall not withdraw it. In addition to the accusations which are made against him, the hon. Gentleman is an anti-Semite. That is surely the manifestation of a Fascist.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us dispose of this matter in a civilised manner. As I have already said to the House, we all know that the word Fascist has a connotation here which is not pleasing. It has a reverberation back to an anniversary which we are to celebrate tomorrow. I do not believe that the House would wish it to be used here against any hon. Member. If the hon. Gentleman used that word, will he please withdraw it? That will dispose of the matter.

Dr. Miller: My conscience will not allow me to withdraw. Of course I used the word. I have said it to the hon. Gentleman personally. I do not use the word as a mere expression. The hon. Gentleman is a very poor example of an hon. Member.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member, who is an experienced Member of this House, will not——

Dr. Miller: I am a very mild man.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Member is a very mild Member and that he has every reason to know the meaning of the word, but I hope that, as I have asked him to withdraw that word, he will now do so. He would not wish to disobey a request from me.

Dr. Miller: In view of the plea that you have made to me, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Nellist: Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, as is recorded in Hansard, the hon. Member for Suffolk,


Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is the chairman of the Conservative party, accused me of being a Red Fascist. The incident was considered by the occupant of the Chair during that debate, and no request for withdrawal was made. Was that because I was one of the newest and youngest Members of the House, and it was the chairman of the Conservative party who used the phrase? Is it all right for Tories to call Labour Members Fascists but a different matter when Labour Members call Tories Fascists?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not present at the time and I do not know of the incident to which the hon. Member refers. However, I think that in future we should not use that word here.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to hear you say that you were not present and did not hear what took place because only 10 days ago you chose to examine the record of an incident three days after it took place. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was then told to withdraw a remark that he had made. Surely the same rule ought to apply in an even-handed way. If the incident of which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) complained has been recorded in Hansard, you are surely under an obligation to examine the record as was the case with the incident involving my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If the allegation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East referred appears in Hansard, surely you should tomorrow ask for a withdrawal of that comment.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting a lot of time. When words such as this are used, points of order must be raised at once. One cannot possibly go back into the record several weeks or months to rake over the use of such words. As I have said, I hope that we shall not hear this phrase used in the House.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a genuine effort to be helpful may I point out that the word "Fascist", like some other words, is bandied around,

frequently with great passion and sincerity. It is nevertheless a matter of perception and philosophy. May I ask you whether, despite the heated exchanges, you will pause for reflection before you make a final ruling about the use of such a word, as I believe that the House would benefit if you proceeded in that way?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his conciliatory comments, but I must tell him and the House that, in relation to the discussions that we have had this afternoon, everybody knows exactly what the word was intended to mean. We all know that we do not impugn the character of any right hon. or hon. Member. That was the intention of the use of the word today, and I therefore rule that it is not a parliamentary word and hope that we shall not use it in the House.

Ms. Clare Short: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you most sincerely to reconsider your ruling——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us. I have nothing more to say on the matter. The House fully understands the point that I am making and nothing that the hon. Lady can say will help me or make me change my mind.

Ms. Short: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are in Britain today openly Fascist parties that call themselves Fascists and contest elections to the House. I put it to you most sincerely that you have made a dangerous ruling. It cannot be unparliamentary to use the term "Fascist", which is a serious political term, in the House when we have organised Fascist movements in Britain. I sincerely ask you to reconsider your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady has made a significant point. It is perfectly true that there are Fascist parties that contest elections, but they have not been elected to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Cheque Book Journalism

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the declaration in any newspaper story, published as a result of payments other than to a journalist or regular contributor, for the rights to such stories, of the amount paid for those rights and the names of those to whom payment was made.
Chequebook journalism has caused many people a great deal of anxiety. Many journalists are unhappy about it and the National Union of Journalists has condemned the practice. So has the Press Council and the House on previous occasions. My Bill does not make chequebook journalism illegal but it is intended to give the public the right to know when it occurs—when sums of money are paid to people other than journalists or regular contributors in return for information that can be the basis of a news item. My Bill will reveal what goes on in an attempt to make the practice less prevalent. If newspapers are obliged to reveal when they have paid large sums of money in the circumstances described, they might well be embarrassed and therefore desist.
We do not know how often chequebook journalism takes place because, by definition, most such transactions take place in secret and the resulting stories masquerade as news items rather than stories under the name of the person from whom the information was obtained. I understand from talking to journalists in Fleet street that the practice has become so prevalent that even members of the public assume that a fairly large sum of money will be paid to them if they have a story. I shall give examples of four types of chequebook journalism, each of which is to be condemned.
The first concerns payment being made to witnesses or people who are likely to become witnesses in court proceedings. Such payments almost inevitably interfere with the course of justice. That was perceived by the Press Council as a matter of importance as long ago as 1966 when, in a declaration of principle, it said:
No payment or offer of payment should be made by a newspaper to any person known or reasonably expected to be a witness in criminal proceedings already begun in exchange for any story or information in connection with the proceedings until they have been concluded.
There are several well publicised cases of sums being offered in such circumstances. In the Jeremy Thorpe case, payment was offered to a material witness and the amount to be paid depended on whether Jeremy Thorpe was found guilty. In the event, he was acquitted, but the principle of a witness having an interest in the outcome of the case is one that we must all deplore. More recently, in the Stephen Waldorf shooting incident, payments were made, as far as we can establish, to people who might have been witnesses in one of the series of legal actions that ensued.
The second type of chequebook journalism concerns payment to criminals or people associated with them. In January 1983 the Press Council said:
Just as it is wrong that the evildoer should benefit from his crime so it is wrong that persons associated with the criminal should derive financial benefit from trading on that association.
That statement was provoked by the Sutcliffe, or Yorkshire Ripper, case as payments were apparently made to people associated with him in return for stories.
The third form of chequebook journalism concerns not criminal activities but payments made by newspapers in return for which they are given a monopoly on the story.

The most recent example concerns the birth of the quads. The story was suppressed for four days because the newspaper that had bought monopoly rights to the story did not want the news item revealed. That is an example of the public having the right to be given information and it being wrong that a newspaper should achieve a monopoly and mislead the public.
Another recent example concerns Zola Budd. I understand that one newspaper has bought the monopoly on stories on her, an athlete of considerable interest to the public. Right hon. and hon. Members who saw the first day of an athletics meeting at which Zola Budd competed will have noticed that, when she won a heat, she was immediately surrounded by what can only be called "heavies" who escorted her away so that she could talk to nobody—not even her fellow competitors. I am happy to say that that practice, to judge from the television coverage, ceased the following day. Many local newspapers strongly resent the nationals stepping in and getting a monopoly of a story, thereby denying the local newspaper the chance to publish it.
My fourth category of objection concerns what I suppose might be called sexual scandals, when a newspaper pays a significant sum of money to a person involved in a sexual scandal so that information will be revealed about the other person in the episode, presumably only when the other person is a national figure. The public should have the right to know that sums of money have been paid to an individual in return for such a story.
Equally regrettable is the fact that there are occasions when the police themselves have been the persons who have sold stories to newspapers because as a result of their privileged position they have had access to information denied to ordinary members of the public. On occasion they have sold that information to newspapers.
If I mentioned all the newspapers, or the ones I have been able to discover, that indulge in chequebook journalism I fear that none of them would report the debate because most of them would be incriminated by my speech. As I cannot be accurate, I shall desist from mentioning any of them. There is a handful that do not indulge in the practice.
The amounts of money involved may vary from a few pounds to as much as £100,000, or so it is alleged. It is the purpose of my Bill to cover amounts of money from £500 upwards.
I have tried hard to think of ways of making chequebook journalism illegal but I cannot find any easy or efficient way of doing so. Sometimes there are beneficial results, of which I shall give two brief examples. Some years ago the thalidomide scandal was revealed because of a payment by a newspaper to an individual who had inside information. More recently the publicity given to the doubtful effectiveness of the Lion breathalyser also came to light as a result of payments by a newspaper.
I repeat that it is not my intention to make chequebook journalism illegal; it is only to make it more difficult. The test seems to be that it is justified as a practice if the newspaper concerned is fully prepared to own up to what it has done, how much money it has paid and to whom the money has been paid. It is the purpose of the Bill to achieve that end.
I do not seek to interfere in contractual relationships between newspapers and people who supply information. I simply believe that it is the responsibility of the British press that such transactions, because they affect the way


newspaper stories are seen and received by the public, should be made public. If the House gives me permission to proceed with the Bill that will be the result of the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Robin Corbett and Mr. Tom Cox.

CHEQUE BOOK JOURNALISM (DECLARATION OF PAYMENTS FOR NEWSPAPER STORIES)

Mr. Alfred Dubs accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the declaration in any newspaper story, published as a result of payments other than to a journalist or regular contributor, for the rights to such stories, of the amount paid for those rights and the names of those to whom payment was made: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

Orders of the Day — Data Protection Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

EXAMINATION MARKS

'(1) Section 21 above shall have effect subject to the provisions of this section in the case of personal data consisting of marks or other information held by a data user—

(a) for the purpose of determining the results of an academic, professional or other examination or of enabling the results of any such examination to be determined; or
(b) in consequence of the determination of any such results.

(2) Where the period mentioned in subsection (6) of section 21 begins before the results of the examination are announced that period shall be extended until—

(a) the end of five months from the beginning of that period; or
(b) the end of forty days after the date of the announcement,

whichever is the earlier.

(3) Where by virtue of subsection (2) above a request is complied with more than forty days after the beginning of the period mentioned in subsection (6) of section 21, the information to be supplied pursuant to the request shall be supplied both by reference to the data in question at the time when the request is received and (if different) by reference to the data as from time to time held in the period beginning when the request is received and ending when it is complied with.

(4) For the purposes of this section the results of an examination shall be treated as announced when they are first published or (if not published) when they are first made available or communicated to the candidate in question.

(5) In this section "examination" includes any process for determining the knowledge, intelligence, skill or ability of a candidate by reference to his performance in any test, work or other activity.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Examination scores—
'Where personal data consist of information as to the marks awarded for any educational or professional examination, the provisions of section 21(6) of this Act shall apply as if for the reference to forty days there were substituted a reference to ninety days.'

Mr. Waddington: I hope that in moving new clause 2 I am opening today's proceedings on a note of harmony, for there was one point on which all parties were agreed in Committee and that was on the need to make some special provision in the Bill to alleviate the administrative and practical problems which the right of subject access might otherwise present to examining bodies. All the members of the Committee, and, I suspect, many hon. Members who were not so fortunate as to take part in our deliberations, have received representations from schools examining bodies, from universities and, in many cases, from professional bodies pointing out the difficulties that they would face if they were obliged to deal with requests for access to data before the results of examinations were announced.
The schools examining boards probably face the greatest problems. As hon. Members will know, these bodies have to work to a very tight timetable to produce the results of GCE and CSE examinations by the middle of the summer so as to fit in with the timetables of further and higher educational establishments which are waiting for the results in order to decide which students to accept for courses; and, of course, the results are also wanted by prospective employers. This means that the examining boards are working at full stretch usually for two or three months in the summer, but in some cases for longer than that, since these days examinations stretch over a longer period. The first practical or oral examination for some GCE subjects may take place as early as April, although final results will not be announced until the end of August. During the intervening period the marks for each part of the various examinations taken by a candidate will be put on to a computer, combined and moderated in various ways, to ensure, for example, a common standard among markers, or to take account perhaps of the illness of a candidate.
If examining boards had to deal with large numbers of requests for access during this period when they were marking and assessing examinations, the whole process could be disrupted, with the result that the announcement of the results might be delayed, to the disadvantage of all concerned. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accepted in Committee that this would be undesirable. I therefore undertook to bring forward on Report an amendment designed to alleviate the problem. New clause 2 honours that undertaking.
I hope it will be thought satisfactory by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) who has tabled new clause 1, which asks that subject access should not have to be granted before 90 days after the request. It will be clear to the House from what I have already said that 90 days may not be sufficient time to solve the problem faced by the boards in all cases.
There is another point. New clause 1 covers only examination marks. Yet examining bodies will also hold other details of candidates, such as their names, schools and the papers they are taking, and, if they had to give subject access to these details within 40 days, their schedules would still be disrupted. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will agree to withdraw new clause 1.
New clause 2 is broadly in line with the approach adopted in an amendment tabled by the official Opposition in Committee. It applies to personal data which are held in order that the results of an examination may be determined. The data may be held by the body which actually conducts the examination or by any other body which contributes to the assessment process. If, as is sometimes the case, examination scripts are marked by the presenting school before being moderated by the examining board, the data held by the school will be covered. For the purpose of the clause, "examination", as subsection (5) makes clear, includes work which is the subject of continuous assessment, because, as I have already mentioned, the problems involved with such assessments are the same. The data in question need not be the examination data themselves. If this provision is to be of any use, it has to cover associated information. All examining bodies are likely to hold this information, and

it must be covered if the intention of the clause to prevent subject access demands from interfering with marking schedules is to be achieved.
The new clause has the effect of extending the 40-day period of grace in cases where a request for subject access is received before the announcement of the examination results. In these circumstances, the user may delay responding to the request until 40 days after the announcement of the results, subject to a maximum total delay from the time of the request of five months. The general intention, of course, is that examining bodies should be able to put requests for access to one side until they have completed the marking process and announced the results. But I should point out that the Council of Europe convention requires that access be granted "without excessive delay". This means that we cannot provide in the Bill for an open-ended delay until results are announced. Although in most cases this will happen within two to three months, it is theoretically possible for there to be a time lag of a year or more, particularly where continuous assessments are involved.
We therefore need to put a maximum limit on the delay, and we believe that five months is reasonable. It is longer than I originally thought would be necessary, but it is difficult to see how it could harm any examinee, and, as I have explained, in the vast majority of cases it will give the school examining boards all the help that they need. Five months is the maximum, and in the vast majority of cases the delay will not be that long. The new clause provides that access must be granted within 40 days of the announcement of the results or within five months of receipt of the request, whichever is the sooner. In most cases, 40 days after the results are announced will be the sooner.
I hope that I have explained adequately why we have decided on precisely these terms. I am sure that the new clause will receive the general approbation of the House.

Mr. Denis Howell: With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to give a brief preliminary welcome to the general attitude taken by the Government to all that went on in Committee. I am sure that all who served on the Committee will not take it amiss if I acknowledge that. At the outset, we wondered whether the Government were hidebound and rigid. There were many interesting debates in Committee on which the Minister could not meet us then, but which he undertook to consider further. I wish to put on record our appreciation of the way in which the hon. and learned Gentleman approached all the difficult matters that we discussed in Committee and of the concessions that he has made, which have considerably improved the Bill. It still does not go as far as we would wish, but that is partly because, as the Minister constantly reminded us, this data protection measure does not cover matters outside word processors, computers and so on. At some time, Parliament must consider whether we should provide for all British subjects rights of access in all circumstances to all information collected about them, as we believe should be done. This applies especially to manual files, which are not covered by the Bill, because they are not data processed, but which we believe should be covered. Nevertheless, we shall not pursue that discussion any further today.
It may be convenient if I refer at this stage to five improvements that the Government have made to the Bill as a result of our discussions in Committee. First, the erasure of inaccurate data, with the power of the Registrar to secure compliance with his requirements, constitutes a significant and welcome improvement. Secondly, the availability of damages for individuals occasioned distress by reason of inaccuracy of data held about them is a major and very welcome concession. Thirdly, on the difficult question of third party information, which we discussed in Committee, we are glad that the Government have found it possible to provide a vital extension of the rights of the individual in this regard. Fourthly, Government amendment No. 32 will place an obligation on the Registrar to investigate all complaints of substance. That, too, was requested by the Opposition in Committee and is a worthwhile advance. Fifthly, it will be the duty of the Registrar to encourage codes of practice. There was considerable discussion of this in Committee, and an excellent improvement has been made. As one of our amendments suggests, we should like this to be statutory. Nevertheless, we welcome the significant improvement made by the Government.
For all those reasons, the Opposition are much happier about the Bill than we were on Second Reading. It makes substantial and welcome advances in the protection of the individual. Therefore, we shall support the Government in helping to get the improved Bill on to the statute book.
One difficulty arises in relation to personal information provided by medical practitioners about patients. That will need further discussion in relation to new clause 4. We welcome the agreement that seems to have come out of discussions between the British Medical Association and the DHSS, but we regret that the protection for doctors has not been extended to the social services. We shall seek to express our regret about that at the appropriate point.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for allowing me to make those introductory remarks. I now address myself to new clause 2. I believe that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who tabled new clause 1, will agree that the proper objectives expressed by all of us have been met by the Government. We have all been inundated with correspondence from the universities, the National Council for Civil Liberties, student unions and other consumer organisations. I believe that the Government have now got this difficult and complex matter about right.
The new clause provides that the principle of access by scholars and students to this information is to be maintained, as most of us would agree that the European convention on human rights requires, but within a sensible timetable which has regard to the difficulties of universities, colleges and other examining bodies. That seems absolutely right to us. I welcome the Minister's initiative in new clause 2.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am pleased to say at the outset that the Government's new clause 2 certainly goes part of the way to meeting the anxieties that led me to table new clause 1. I am not sure, however, that it goes as far as I believe that it should go and as I believe that a number of university vice-chancellors feel that it should go. I shall try to explain why.
I have taken a close interest in this ever since the Bill first appeared and I tabled an amendment for consideration in Committee which was moved by my hon. Friend the

Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I followed the arguments deployed in Committee very carefully, I have had discussions with Brunel university in my constituency and have received considerable correspondence and comments on the matter from others in the academic world.
There are very important and genuine reasons for protecting the privacy of personal examination data for a reasonable period of time. The purpose of new clause 1 is to protect the confidentiality of personal data, mainly consisting of examination marks. I realise that my draftsmanship does not match that of the Government, but the intention is clear — to protect marks and other information held by the data user for the purpose of determining results of an academic, professional or other examination, for 90 days from the date on which examination results are published. I wish to draw that point to the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.
As I understand it — I stand to be corrected — new clause 2 would protect information for only 40 days after publication of the examination results. That being the case, it is important for me to deploy the case for 90 days so that at least my right hon. and hon. Friends have the opportunity of understanding a matter that has disturbed many academics who are concerned with examination procedures.
It is feared by many examiners that students will demand access to data and challenge them, not least because they can only win in such a situation. It is felt that delay for a reasonable period would ensure that a request for data would not be made at whim. I suggested a period of 90 days—it is a little longer than the period included by my hon. and learned Friend in his new clause—because it would be a reasonable disincentive to frivolous challenge. There is a further important point, that examiners should be able to conduct examinations without the risk of frivolous challenge to results. Some other valid points have been made.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I have difficulty in understanding the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I do not follow his argument. I should like to know why such a challenge is frivolous. If it is frivolous, how is it less likely to be frivolous after 90 days rather than 40 days after publication of results?

Mr. Shersby: It is thought that challenges may well be frivolous. It has been put to me by some academics that a student who is in a position to challenge his examination results has nothing to lose by so doing. Therefore, the 40 day period will encourage that type of frivolous challenge. Those students who receive disappointing results often feel that they were fair, after a period of mature reflection and discussion. Consequently, it has been put to me that 90 days is a reasonable time for people to consider whether their results are as they should be. That is why new clause 2 has been tabled. I know that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) does not agree with that. I have read his Committee speech in the Official Report. He is entitled to his point of view, and I must deploy the points that have been put to me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, with his customary charm. Although I welcome new clause 2 I would have been happier if the period was a little longer.
We must also consider cases that occur when students expect to receive a first-class honours degree but, when the


final grades for the examination are considered and the correct weighting and assessment methods have been used, they receive only an upper second class. As a result of that sort of misunderstanding, which can easily occur and in which anguish is caused to students, it is felt that introducing a slightly longer period for reflection would be of assistance.
It is also likely that the number of appeals against final grades that are made for frivolous reasons would be greatly reduced. Those students who chose to appeal after 90 days would probably be those with a serious grievance, who had thoroughly thought out the reasons for their appeal, while students who wanted to appeal on the spur of the moment, immediately after receiving their grades, would probably have had second thoughts.
4.45 pm
Another reason for the 90-day period is that less time would be wasted by university visitors, who might otherwise have to examine appeals made by students on a whim. More time could be spent in examining serious grievances through the usual appeal procedure.
Another point that must be considered is the reduction in the number of appeals, which would have an important side effect. It would probably mean that examination boards would be more ready to use their discretion when making decisions on final grades. They would feel that it was less likely that their decisions would be frequently challenged. That would allow the boards to continue in their important role as moderators of examination results, in which they can make allowances for ill-health, emotional upset and other factors. The 90-day period was suggested for those reasons.
I am sorry that the Minister has not felt able to improve in new clause 2 on the 40 days, to which he referred in Committee. He has clearly made substantial improvements in other respects in new clause 2, which I warmly welcome. It is only right and proper to put on record the genuine concern felt by some universities that the 40-day period is too short. I realise that, as this is a Lords Bill, we shall not have the opportunity to consider the matter again, which is to be regretted.
I shall be grateful if, when he replies, my hon. and learned Friend will comment on the reasons why he chose a period of 40 days and why he does not feel able to make a further improvement along the lines suggested in new clause 1.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I join the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in acknowledging that the Government have responded to a tenacious and attentive Committee by bringing forward changes on Report.
I must comment in passing on the contrast between the speech that the right hon. Gentleman made this afternoon and his words on Second Reading. He will recall that, in winding-up the debate on Second Reading, he was roaring like a lion in his opposition to it and all its works. He said that the Bill was
a totally inadequate protection for the individual citizen, of his privacy, of his right to know what information is held about him and of his right to be told when such information is being transferred to others.
He also said that the Registrar

will be overwhelmed with work, and will be inadequately staffed, without codes of conduct approved by Parliament."—[Official Report, 30 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 98–99.]
That position is largely unchanged by the work of the Committee. The contrast between the right hon. Gentleman's roaring like a lion then and his bleating like a lamb this afternoon will be noted.
Having made that point, I welcome new clause 2. It just about strikes the balance that must be struck between ensuring that information held about students is made available to them, in accordance with the terms of the convention, soon after examinations, and enabling examinations to be conducted properly and concluded without interference. Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I should be interested to hear how the Minister arrived at the magic figure of 40 days and, even more, the five months from the beginning of the period. That is a little on the long side. I do not know what representations on the periods he received, and from what bodies. It would be interesting to know that, because no doubt the practicalities of what has been suggested will continue to be debated after the Bill reaches the statute book. We should like to be assured on that point.
The Government have shown themselves to be conscious of the representations made by the vice-chancellors and of the proper concerns of students to have access to information about them. When universities, colleges of further education or other institutions of learning affected by the measure have conducted their examinations, they must be prepared to defend their judgment and decisions. It is right that students should have access to the information that is secured by the measure. Therefore, I welcome new clause 2.

Sir Dudley Smith: I did not have the advantage of being a member of the Committee, so I should like to declare an interest. I am connected with an international banking and credit card firm that is affected by some of the provisions in the Bill. My interest goes wider than that because, as a member of this Parliament's delegation to the Council of Europe assembly, I have always supported the convention on data protection, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Minister referred. I have always felt that it was a specifically important project that affected all the nations of Europe, and that we needed to come into line with it.
The new clause, moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister, brings in a common-sense provision. All legislation should reflect sound sense. All too often, the man in the street, and even a specialist, finds it obtuse and not sensible. It must be right to make the marking process paramount and unhindered.
I was impressed by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). It is apparent to all of us that, in the anger or disappointment at having failed examinations, people might rush away and put in applications. My hon. Friend said that there should be a cooling-off period of 90 days rather than 40 days. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) asked for an explanation for that. It is a cooling-off period. People genuinely have second thoughts. I should have thought that it was in the interests not only of administrators but of students to have a period for reflection. Students would lose nothing by that if, in the longer term, they were still able to make their appeal. Therefore, I hope that my hon.


and learned Friend the Minister will reconsider the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge because his argument had a good deal of merit.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, we welcome the Government's fulfilment of the commitment that they gave in Committee. Like my right hon. Friend, I favour maximum protection of the privacy of the individual. In principle, I am also in favour of maximum access for the individual to information about him. That particularly applies to examination marks, scores or assessments. We believe that there should be as much accessibility to all kinds of information for the individual as is compatible with the privacy of other individuals. As the Minister said in moving the new clause, article 8 of the convention states that there must be access to personal information on an individual, and it must be allowed without excessive delay. Article 9 does not allow any derogation from the principles enshrined in article 8 for examination marks.
Like my right hon. Friend, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who spoke long and eloquently on this issue in Committee, I do not believe that there is any reason for marks, scores or assessments of any kind—whether at O or A-level, for professional organisations' examinations or university examinations — to remain hidden from the individual on whom the assessment has been made. There is no reason for secrecy. There is nothing that any examiner should have to hide from the person whom he has been examining. I say that as an examiner at O and A-level, and university level. Neither on past occasions nor now would I be prepared to defend preventing any of the people whose papers I have marked from having access to my assessment of their work.
A student has the right to know the value that has been apportioned by his examiner to his work. We agree that every effort should be made to make the reasons available, to allow the student to know how the marks were arrived at, to see the values attached to different parts of his work, and to enable him to see that there is a clear, rational base for the decisions made about him. This may not always have happened in the past, but the provision will ensure that in future examiners behave conscientiously and competently when they mark examination papers. There is nothing more likely to ensure that an examiner treats an examinee's script properly and conscientiously than if he knows that the examinee will have access to it and might argue about and challenge the marking afterwards. One good reason for the new clause is to ensure that examiners are kept on their toes.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said that the 40-day period during which there may be a delay between publication and access to information about examinations is too short, because there may be frivolous applications. When I intervened in the hon. Gentleman's speech, I failed to see the force of his argument, just as I fail to see it now. I cannot see how any student would be more likely to make a frivolous demand for the raw marks to be given to him after 40 days than after 90 days. He is not likely to make a frivolous demand in the first place. It is a serious and important subject. It is not frivolous to say, "I want to see how the raw scores were made and how I was assessed." If the request is serious after 40 days, it will be equally serious after 90 days.
Another reason advanced by the hon. Gentleman was that the longer period would enable students to reflect on the results. They will have received their results on publication. All that the students are asking is how results, such as a first class or upper second degree, were arrived at. They do not get that information until 40 days after publication, under the Bill. No extra period for reflection is necessary.
There is no reason why marks should not be available The only problem is trying to ensure that, when they are made available to examinees, there is no disruption of the examining process. That was the only issue that lay between the two sides of the Committee, and it was not contentious. We made an effort to arrive at what we believed to be a sensible and practicable solution.
There is no magic in the 90-clay or 40-day period. Given our principle of wanting to make as much information as possible available and accessible in as short a time as possible, the Government's new clause is desirable. My hon. Friends will support it and, if necessary, oppose new clause 1 tabled by the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

Mr. Waddington: I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for his generous remarks, as well as to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). The Committee was useful. There were interesting debates, and some benefits flowed from them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said that he wanted a delay of 90 days from the date of publication of the results. That is not the effect of new clause 1, which he tabled. The new clause refers to the provisions of clause 21(6) of the Bill, and its effect would be to postpone the right of access to 90 days after the request for access was made, not for 90 days after the publication of the final results. In fact, our new clause 2 is more generous than his, and that is why I feel that, on reflection, he will be happy with it.
5 pm
I should go back to the beginning, because we seem to be forgetting how the debate began. It began with the examining boards telling us that they have a busy time in the summer of each year and would find it difficult if, while carrying out the examining process, they were bombarded by applications for access to raw scores as a result of preliminary tests that had taken place before the final examinations. Therefore, a new clause that postponed access to raw scores until after publication of the final results must meet that point, and mean that no request need be dealt with until after the examiners have got over the rush period and produced the final results. That is the reason behind the wording of our new clause.
There is no magic in the 40 days. We have kept that period because it appears in clause 21(6) and we have merely set the clock running, as it were, from the publication of the final results rather than from the date for access.
Likewise, there is no magic in the five-month period because, as I said earlier, the first practical or oral examinations for GCE subjects take place as early as April, and the final results do not come out until well on into the summer. That is where the five months comes from. We felt that by picking on this figure we would cover almost all eventualities without having to say that there would be no subject access until the final results were made, which would put us in peril of offending against the


convention. In all the circumstances, I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will feel that we have adopted the right course.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) drew a contrast between the words of the right hon. Member for Small Heath on Second Reading and his words today. It would be ungracious of me to follow the hon. Gentleman in that, and I shall say no more.

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful for what my hon. and learned Friend has had to say in a typically helpful and generous speech. This matter has caused a great deal of interest and concern in the academic world, and, while I would have preferred my 90 days, I wish to reciprocate in a generous mood. Therefore, I shall not press my new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

EXEMPTION FROM THE NON-DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

'The Secretary of State may by order withdraw modify or supplement the Provisions exempting personal data from the nondisclosure provisions for the purpose of providing additional safeguards for the data-subject in relation to personal data consisting of information as to:

(a) Spiritual counselling or to assistance given or to be given to him
(b) Social work or similar activities involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him or
(c) To other activities relating to his personal welfare and involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him—

(i) By a voluntary organisation; or
(ii) By an individual who by reason of his office or occupation has responsibilities for his personal welfare.'—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the new clause is to give the Secretary of State power by order to supplement the provisions of the Bill to give protection to information that has been given either as a result of spiritual counselling or social work, or of similar activities.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), in his first intervention in this debate, injected a note of contentious and adversarial politics. He drew attention to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend may roar like a lion, but I have never yet heard him bleat like a lamb. In any event, many of the points that we raised both on Second Reading and in Committee have resulted in changes to the Bill, conceded by the Government in response to the arguments advanced by the official Opposition and not those advanced by the Social Democratic party representative. He was more remarkable for his absence than his presence during our debates.
I say that because it applies particularly to the subject that we are debating. I looked quickly through the debate in Committee that we had on social work and the protection that we are seeking for those records. The hon. Gentleman was conspicuous, not by his absence, but for the lack of any contribution to that debate, the one preceding it, or the one following it.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman must know that there was only one occasion when I was not present during the debates in Committee. I was present throughout the debates, which is more than can be said about him. He was absent from the debates on many occasions and left it to his long-winded and somewhat tedious colleagues to delay proceedings into the middle of the night.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I shall not enter into this slanging match, but I have obviously touched upon a nerve in the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains, as anyone can see from the records, that on many of the major issues the hon. Gentleman did not make any contribution to the debate and when he did contribute, such contributions were not significant or important.
The Government have already conceded by a later amendment that there are certain types of information about individuals that are peculiarly delicate, sensitive or confidential, and to which therefore some protection should be accorded. We understand that, after consultations with the BMA and health authorities, the Government have conceded that there shall be protection for personal information about a person's physical or mental health. We also understand that the Health Services Act will be amended to ensure that information in the Health Service shall not be disclosed to the police, tax or Customs and Excise authorities, and the Government are now extending that protection to all health information, wherever it is held.
The Government have conceded the principle that certain types of information are confidential, delicate and sensitive. We are saying that the same protection should now also be afforded to social work information. Clearly, the Government recognise the sensitivity of information contained on social work files or given as a result of spiritual counselling. This is shown by the protection afforded to this information in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Paragraphs(a), (b) and (c) of new clause 4 are lifted precisely from the part of that Bill which provide that where such information is contained, the police will not have the legal ability to make a search of premises to obtain that information.
If the Government in their wisdom are saying that such information, given voluntarily by the individual in such situations, is so sensitive, important and potentially embarrassing or controversial that the police shall not be able to search for it, it would seem to us to be important that in this Bill we also say that such information may not be disclosed to the police, the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise for the purposes set out in clause 28.
We say this because confidentiality between social workers and their clients, or between a vicar or a priest and members of his congregation, depends on the belief that that confidentiality will be respected. It depends upon their belief that they have the confidence and trust of the social worker, vicar or priest, and that the information that they give to those individuals will not be passed on to any third party. Individuals who give this kind of information under stress, usually in an emotional situation, certainly when they are vulnerable and disadvantaged, and seeking help, advice and assistance, would not look for that advice, help or assistance, and would not volunteer that information, if they were aware of the danger that it could be passed on subsequently without their knowledge, still less their consent, to a third party, which might be the police, national security authorities or anyone else.
For those reasons, we believe that the same kind of protection should be afforded to this information that the Government give to information in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, and, indeed, in this Bill to health information within and outside the National Health Service.
Leaving those arguments to one side—they were fully deployed in Committee, and the Minister is well aware of them—I wish to put certain questions to him. The Bill will give protection to health information held on an individual within and outside the National Health Service, but how will one separate health information from other information contained on social work files? The Minister will be aware that many social work files contain information about the physical and often the mental health of the individual on whom the information is held. How will one separate the health information and the social work information contained on the files in well women's clinics, which are supposed to consider all aspects of women's problems, medical and social, and whose files contain medical and social work information? How is one to separate the health information and social work information contained on the files compiled by community nurses and others? One could continue to cite examples in which there is no clear distinction on a file about an individual between information relating to his or her physical or mental health and information that relates to a social work function. It is therefore important for the professionals to have some indication from the Minister of how the problem will be dealt with when the Bill is implemented.
We believe that information on individuals should be disclosed only to the police, if it is to be disclosed at all, in well-defined clearly stated circumstances, and only then as a consequence of a serious offence. Whether we maintain that this information should not be disclosed, or accept, perhaps reluctantly, that there may be circumstances in which it can be disclosed, there ought to he safeguards such as we seek in new clause 4.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We support the clause for many of the reasons stated by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), and particularly because, although there may be objections of a technical nature to the drafting, which I understand, and which relate to the way in which one defines the kind of relationships and confidentiality that exist in the sphere of social work, it is clear that the professional people involved are concerned about the information that they receive about the most personal details of people's lives. As a result of this provision, which I accept would enable only specifics to be divulged, it is feared that the information might not be protected in the same way that information referred to in other parts of the Bill is protected.
The three categories set out are often interrelated. Not only do they govern the medical records that are of a wider definition in the medical context, whether psychiatric, psychological or social—in the same sense that people seek advice on matrimonial or family problems—but they relate particularly to those pieces of information that arise in what is traditionally the most protected context of all, that is, that between an individual and his or her spiritual adviser. One of the traditional understandings about privacy is that information passed on to the priest or

vicar will be treated as sacred and respected, like information passed to a doctor. Those two professions in this country have been assumed traditionally to be those able to listen, in the same way that the Samaritans organisation advertises that it listens, with the person involved knowing that the information will not be passed on.
It is important to have people in society whose function is not necessarily to produce and immediate remedy, but to listen and respond, knowing that that process is inviolate from any efforts of the law or people who, if the Bill goes through unamended, might trespass upon information given for the benefit of, with the connivance and help of other people.
I anticipate one problem that I do not think need prevent acceptance of the new clause. It concerns the wording of the new clause:
personal data consisting of information as to:
(c) other activities relating to his personal welfare and involving counselling or assistance given or to be given to him—

(i) By a voluntary organisation; or
(ii) By an individual who by reason of his office or occupation has responsibilities."

There are, of course, innumerable people who could claim that they have that sort of professional relationship. I can understand that the Minister might say, "We don't want to allow everyone to lay claim to that relationship." That would be a valid reluctance. Voluntary organisations that are recognised as acceptable in their sphere of counselling—the one that I have cited, the Samaritans, is one of the best known voluntary organisations, and there are many others of a more local and parochial nature—and individuals who in all kinds of walks of life are given a specific responsibility, accepted by the community as necessary to cope with the problems of individuals, should be covered by the proposed new clause, or similar words that are acceptable to the Government. I hope that the Minister, even if he thinks that there may be a better form of words, will at least say that the principle is accepted. If not, one of the traditional places where liberty, secrecy and privacy have ben safeguarded will be eroded, and a protection that has existed hitherto will no longer be available to people.
I know that the argument is always available to Government that there is no current legislation protecting data, which, of course, we accept. This is the first assemblage of control of data. But there is always the danger that, once an edifice is set up, it is more difficult to change it. Once categories are defined, some people are included within their jurisdiction, and some fall outside them. It would be better to accept an enabling new clause that does not dictate how this will be done, but gives the Secretary of State power to act, after consultation, in the best interests of the citizens of Britain. If the objective is to protect, by legislation rather than by tradition, private information about the most private and emotional parts of people's lives as well as their physical and spiritual health, this should be done in such a way that they are reassured after the process of the Bill, and not further concerned as a result of reluctance by the Government.

Dr. Roger Thomas: I agree with what has been said in favour of new clause 4. I agree that it is difficult to distinguish between medical and social information relating to a particular patient or problem. These days much information is gathered and fed into a


system based upon the case conference. That is not a gathering of medical people alone, but of people who are interested in a problem and in discussing it. These days that involves a wide range of people dealing with family problems, housing, education and the physical and mental well-being of individuals.
The system that has been used in relation to psychiatric cases for many years is now used by other medical interests. The Government have demonstrated a certain amount of co-operation in relation to the confidentiality of medical information. To provide safeguards only for medical information is too narrow and could affect essential improvements in the case conference system. The advantages of the system would be decimated by too narrow an approach, and if medical information were regarded as confidential and social and other important allied information were excluded.
We appreciate the moves in relation to medical information, but sensitive and personal information of other kinds should be included. I believe that the provision should be expanded. That would satisfy voluntary and other organisations involved in individual problems. It would be a pity if we confined protection for the individual to medical information.

Mr. Waddington: I was surprised at the remarks by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He said that the traditional understanding is that information passed on to a priest, for example, should be treated as sacred. That is right. That is the traditional understanding. Nothing whatsoever in the Bill makes such information less sacred, impinges on the traditional understanding to which he referred, or makes it any more likely that such information will be passed on by a priest, a Samaritan or a social worker.
We must remember what we are talking about. The Bill does not force people to disclose information. The Bill extends the present protection given to individuals by placing restrictions on the disclosure of information. From the words of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey one might have thought that the Bill had precisely the opposite intention. Let us be clear. The Bill certainly does not have any effect on the traditional understanding that information passed on in confidence should be kept confidential.
As I expected, the Opposition's arguments rest largely on the parallel between data held by those who provide counselling services and medical data. The argument is that if the Government accept that special provision for medical data is desirable, the same criterion should apply to data communicated for counselling purposes. I would not for one moment seek to belittle or undermine the essential work carried out by those who provide the services to which the new clause relates, but there are good reasons why health data should be regarded as being in a class of their own. I need do no more than quote the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) who, in Committee, said:
personal health information is special, peculiar and different from anything else."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H,5 April 1984; c. 684.]
Health data are, of course, recognised by the Council of Europe convention and, indeed, by clause 2 of the Bill, as being special. The convention places them in a category with data relating to a person's racial origin, his political

or religious beliefs and his criminal convictions, and says that such data may require special protection. This is because, as the explanatory memorandum to the convention makes clear, they are regarded as specially sensitive. The sort of data covered by this new clause are not regarded by the convention as being in the same category. Of course, health data are also different because they are relevant in so many circumstances that, sensitive and confidential though they are, the health professional cannot always retain direct control over them.
That is the main substance of the debate that has been brought to our attention by the health professionals. If a health professional works within the National Health Service, the records will technically be the property of the health authority. If he is carrying out a routine medical check for an employer or a life assurance company, the data will, of course, be passed on to those concerned. The data subject is aware of all this, but he still has a right to expect that information about his health, which most people regard as particularly confidential and sensitive, will be properly protected. I am, to some extent, anticipating the arguments for amendment No. 3, which we shall, I hope, be discussing shortly.
My point is that the data covered in new clause 4 are not routinely passed on as, we are told, health data are passed on. The confidential material obtained by the priest is certainly not passed on as a matter of routine. If the priest decides to breach confidentiality, that is a matter for him. The Bill has no bearing on that whatsoever. Confidential material obtained by the marriage counsellor or the social worker is not generally required for other purposes. Such professionals retain control of the information. The data subject can be confident that information about him will not be passed on indiscriminately, since he knows that he can trust the professional concerned to use his discretion fairly.
That is why, although the categories of data mentioned in new clause 4 are culled from an earlier version of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, no special provision is needed for them in this Bill. The Police and Criminal Evidence Bill deals with an entirely different situation. It deals with the powers of the police to obtain evidence, if necessary against the will of the people who have it. It is, therefore, right that special safeguards should be put in that Bill covering information which has been given to those people in special confidence. However, in this Bill we are dealing with voluntary disclosures. Subject to the Bill's restrictions on disclosures, the decision whether to disclose is left to the discretion of the counsellor, as it is at present.
I have said that health data are different from social work data, but that needs qualifying in one respect. It is necessary to make the qualification in answer to the first question posed by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. It is, of course, likely that counsellors, whether spiritual, marital, professional or whatever, will occasionally hold information of the sensitive nature mentioned in clause 2. A social worker may, for example, hold health data. Those data will not suddenly become social work data simply because they are held by a social worker. If health data are held by a social worker, they remain health data and will be covered by the provisions that we hope shortly to insert into the Bill through another new clause. They will still be data about a person's physical or mental health and, as such, will be subject to the provisions of any order made under clause 2.
5.30 pm
The main point, and the reason why the new clause is unnecessary, is that the Bill does nothing that could diminish the confidence that is necessary in the relationship between counsellor and client. Indeed, it helps to underpin that confidence, as the data will be subject. as they are not now, to the data protection principles and to the general restrictions on disclosure imposed by the Bill. That is something of which we should not lose sight.
As I have said in the past, the Bill is a positive measure that introduces new safeguards, which I believe are adequate to protect the sort of data covered by the new clause. I therefore recommend that it be rejected.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am not convinced by the Minister's argument that health data are different from social services data. I do not believe that this argument can be upheld after careful scrutiny of the issue.

Mr. Waddington: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was the proposition advanced by the Opposition during the debate on health data in Committee?

Mr. Howell: I do not think that the Minister is correct. The BMA held a major campaign on behalf of doctors. I concede that the Government met its point—although in an odd manner — as a result of discussion with a Department that was not represented in Committee. Home Office Ministers have been carried along with the BMA's discussions on the confidentiality of medical records. I congratulate the BMA on its victory. However, I wish that it had shown a little more concern for the British Association of Social Workers. If that association had been affiliated to the BMA, the position of social workers would be as well covered as that of doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) has experience as a practising doctor. As he said, it becomes more and more difficult to divorce medical information from social information on a patient's record. Quite often, medical illnesses, such as depression and mental illness, result from some social evil or distress. I am sure that the Minister will agree that we cannot divorce the two issues.
I am not sure whether the Minister understands the point about priests. Any priest worth his salt will, in a confessional or other relationship with his congregation, receive confidential information which, if he is to carry out his priestly duties properly, he must do something about. In cases of physical or mental illness, the priest must convey that information to a general practitioner or directly to a consultant in a hospital. That information will be put on record and will become part of the data. What the priest says will not be protected, but what the doctor says will be protected. That is illogical.

Mr. Waddington: I do not understand how the right hon. Gentleman can advance that proposition. If the priest discovers medical information, that information remains medical information whether it comes from the mouth of a priest or the mouth of a doctor.

Mr. Howell: What the priest discovers will not be medical information; it will be attitudes of mind, causes of distress and examples of unsatisfactory behaviour. He will refer those cases to a doctor for analysis, diagnosis and treatment. We cannot divorce one from the other.
There are many examples of the problem, such as child adoption and abuse of children. I know that the Home

Office is as concerned as we all are about child battering. In those cases, information will not originate with a doctor. A doctor will be asked to give information about the extent of an abuse. He may refer the case to the police or to the social services. At that point everything becomes confused. As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said, we cannot divorce one part of the information from the other part. That is why social workers should have the same protection as doctors.

Mr. Waddington: I must clarify one point. The right hon. Gentleman must know that an inter-professional working group came to the Home Office and asked us to take special measures on health data. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, perhaps I should tell him now that represented on that working group were people working in the various areas to which he has referred. It would be quite erroneous to give the impression that the views of those working in those areas were not considered when we discussed the matter with the inter-professional working group and decided to table the new clause that we shall discuss shortly.

Mr. Howell: I accept that the Minister has considered these matters. Indeed, I would expect him to do so. Our complaint is that he has reached the wrong conclusion. It is as simple as that. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is valiantly trying to defend his conclusion, but it does not make sense.
I could list a whole range of examples, such as defects in houses that can lead to health problems and the relationship of educational social services with educational health services. We cannot divorce the social services aspect from the medical aspect.
We are delighted that the Government have gone halfway, but they have not faced the reality of life. Therefore, I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 208.

Division No. 343]
[5.38 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dormand, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Douglas, Dick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dubs, Alfred


Ashdown, Paddy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Barnett, Guy
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Barron, Kevin
Ewing, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fatchett, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Anthony
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buchan, Norman
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clay, Robert
Godman, Dr Norman


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Gould, Bryan


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry


Conlan, Bernard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter


Cowans, Harry
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Craigen, J. M.
Haynes, Frank


Crowther, Stan
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)






Howells, Geraint
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pike, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Janner, Hon Greville
Redmond, M.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kennedy, Charles
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Kirkwood, Archibald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Leighton, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Loyden, Edward
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McTaggart, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McWilliam, John
Tinn, James


Madden, Max
Torney, Tom


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wainwright, R.


Martin, Michael
Wallace, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wareing, Robert


Maxton, John
Weetch, Ken


Meadowcroft, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Winnick, David


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nellist, David
Mr. Don Dixon and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Roger Thomas.


O'Neill, Martin





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fox, Marcus


Arnold, Tom
Freeman, Roger


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fry, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Batiste, Spencer
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ground, Patrick


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grylls, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nick
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harvey, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Cockeram, Eric
Hayhoe, Barney


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Cope, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Crouch, David
Heddle, John


Dickens, Geoffrey
Henderson, Barry


Dicks, Terry
Hickmet, Richard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hind, Kenneth


Dunn, Robert
Hirst, Michael


Durant, Tony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Eggar, Tim
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Emery, Sir Peter
Holt, Richard


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Hooson, Tom


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Fallon, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Favell, Anthony
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Forman, Nigel
Irving, Charles


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Forth, Eric
Jessel, Toby


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shersby, Michael


Lester, Jim
Silvester, Fred


Lightbown, David
Sims, Roger


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Speller, Tony


Macfarlane, Neil
Spencer, Derek


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David John
Squire, Robin


McQuarrie, Albert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, John


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mellor, David
Tapsell, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Terlezki, Stefan


Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moore, John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thurnham, Peter


Mudd, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Murphy, Christopher
Tracey, Richard


Neale, Gerrard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steven
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Philip
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Osborn, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Page, John (Harrow W)
Ward, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Parris, Matthew
Watts, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Raymond


Porter, Barry
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Powley, John
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Michael


Proctor, K. Harvey



Rathbone, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Ian Lang.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

SECTION IO ENFORCEMENT NOTICE

'If the Registrar is satisfied that any person has required an individual to make a request under section 21 as a condition for entering into any agreement with him or conferring any benefit or advantage on him (hereinafter known as a "wrongful request") the Registrar may serve him with an enforcement notice under section 10 above.—[Mr. Kilroy-Silk.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 8—Code of Practice—

`(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to make and publish Advisory Codes of Practice for guidance to data users in order to give effect to the Data Protection Principles.
(2) Before any such Advisory Code is made, the Registrar shall:—

(a) Consult trade associations or other bodies representing data users.
(b) Consult bodies representing data subjects.
(c) Give public notice of any draft Code of Practice by inviting objections and representations.
(d) Consider any such objections and representations.'.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The purpose of the clause is to attempt to deal with issues of the sort which apparently arose in Washington in the United States after the enactment of legislation similar to that which we are considering. I am told that employers in that state required of prospective employees that they furnished them with a printout from the local police computer to show that they had no criminal record of convictions. That may seem to be a reasonable request but it is my understanding that the criminal records office of Scotland Yard is concerned, given the experience of the enactment of similar legislation in Washington, that it may be overwhelmed by similar requests.
Parliament has already laid down that an offender's previous convictions shall be expunged from the record under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which states in part that anyone's offences committed over 10 years ago shall be spent. It is clear that Parliament does not believe that a series of convictions should be held against an individual in the way in which it could be if experience in Washington were to be replicated in Britain.
When we had a brief debate on this issue in Committee the Minister said that he was sympathetic to the purpose behind the Bill. That is to be found in column 468. The hon. and learned Gentleman then adduced arguments against our proposed amendment on the ground that the criminal and civil law were not the appropriate means to deal with the perceived nuisance. In that amendment we suggested that it should be a criminal offence to require of a person that he obtains information about his record from the police or from other organisations. We accepted in Committee that the civil law and the criminal law were probably inappropriate means of dealing with the nuisance. That is why the clause provides that the registrar shall be required to take action.
We are saying that if an employer is requiring prospective employees to furnish him with a printout from the Metropolitan police computer, or from the computers of other police forces, which shows that there is no known criminal record held against that individual, the Registrar should he able to issue an enforcement notice under the terms of the Bill telling that employer to desist from the practice. That seems to me and my right hon. and hon. Friends to be a reasonable and sensible means of dealing with what the Minister regards as a potential nuisance. He has already said that he is sympathetic to that purpose. It would be rather unfortunate if a Bill were enacted that was considered to be of benefit to individuals in protecting

their privacy and was found in certain respects to be an invasion of their privacy. The clause seems to provide a fairly easy way of dealing with this potential nuisance.

Mr. Waddington: In explaining why I cannot recommend the new clause to the House, I do not want to imply that I see no cause for the concern that has been expressed about the potential for third parties to pressurise individuals to exercise the subject access rights that are created by the Bill. However, I cannot accept that any of the solutions so far proposed, including the new clause, provide a satisfactory answer to the problem.
In Committee we debated an amendment which would have made it a criminal offence to make what the new clause calls "a wrongful request". I said then, in effect, that not all such requests could be considered "wrongful", and that it seemed virtually impossible to devise a statutory provision which would distinguish between those which were and those which were not. I remain of that view and I consider that the system proposed in the clause is unworkable. It is based on a misapprehension about the nature of enforcement notices, which are the means used by the Registrar to ensure that the data protection principles are observed by registered persons.
Clause 10(1) states that an enforcement notice must specify the steps to be taken so that whatever data protection principle has been reached may be complied with. The problem is that the making of a "wrongful request" is not a breach of the data protection principles. Indeed, it could not possibly be a breach of the principles because a "wrongful request" can be made by someone who is not even a data user. So an enforcement notice under the new clause could not order its recipient to withdraw his request and not to do it again.
It seems that the only way to remedy the problem would be for a further amendment to be made to clause 10 to provide that an enforcement notice could be served on any person whether or not registered under the Bill requiring him to take such steps as are specified to withdraw the "wrongful request". That would be odd, given the general role of the registrar to regulate and supervise registered users and bureaux, not the general public. It reveals also the fatal flaw in the idea that is expressed by the new clause. Once a request of that kind has been made, it is futile to think of it being withdrawn. The effect would be precisely the same as if the individual data subject simply refused to comply with the request in the first place, which he is already entirely at liberty to do. The device is an ingenious one but it does nothing to solve the problem or to help the data subject.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If it becomes known that a certain company is consistently and habitually requiring information of the sort to which I have referred from prospective employees—we all regard that practice as unacceptable, including the Minister — is it not reasonable to look for a means of dealing with the nuisance? Is not the most reasonable approach that he or I have found so far to say to the registrar, "You shall have power to tell that company to desist from this practice and that penalties and sanctions will follow from the inability or wilful refusal to comply with the notice?"

Mr. Waddington: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I have been saying. What happens if the company that makes the request is not a data user? The purpose of the Bill is to make data users register with


the registrar and to give the registrar supervisory powers over the user. If the person who asks a potential employee to get information from the police about his previous record, or lack of record, is not a user, how can we frame the Bill so as to give the registrar, who has no supervisory rights over a person who is not a user, the power to supervise that non-data user and to serve upon him a notice, a power which is available to the registrar only in respect of data users, to make him conform with the data principles?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I accept that difficulty but I understood that we had overcome it in the drafting of the new clause. I accept that the Bill deals with data users and data subjects. It may be possible that the individual making the request is not a user but the new clause states:
If the Registrar is satisfied that any person"—
not necessarily a data user or a data subject. Is that not a means of overcoming the difficulty to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded? I ask that question in all humility because I am neither a parliamentary draftsman nor a lawyer.

Mr. Waddington: It could be a means of doing so but it would be an odd way in which to proceed. If it were adopted, many more amendments would have to made to the Bill than the one which is sought in the new clause. I cannot imagine a more radical alteration to the Bill than the one which has the effect of giving the registrar powers over data users as defined in the Bill and over many others as well. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that the Bill is concerned with the setting up of a registration system that will be supervised by a registrar. It is about data users being subject to disciplines that are overseen by the registrar. That is why I said earlier that I cannot accept that that is the way in which we should proceed, given the fact that we are dealing with a Data Protection Bill and a registration system.
Even if by some extraordinary mechanism we could give the registrar powers over non-data users as defined in the Bill, we would still be faced with the problem of deciding when the registrar should be able to use his enforcement powers. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill's structure depends upon the registrar having power to serve an enforcement notice to demand compliance with the data protection principles. The type of conduct to which reference is made in the new clause is certainly not in breach of those principles.
6 pm
The new clause would mean asking the registrar not only to exercise powers against people who are not data users but to use an enforcement notice for a purpose that differs entirely from the purpose for which the enforcement notice was devised — to make a person conform with the data protection principles.

Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I know, for example, of inquirers who illegally obtain information on car numbers or owners from the police. This power would spread to vast sections of the community.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am not persuaded that we will find a worthwhile definition of a "wrongful request". There are, undoubtedly,

circumstances in which a data subject might legitimately want to comply with a request by a potential employer to provide certain information. My case rests not on that point but on the impossibility of dealing with the mischief that, undoubtedly, can sometimes exist with the use of the type of mechanism that has been proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I am not saying that there cannot be a mischief. I am saying merely that we have not yet found a means of coping with it.

Mr. Maclennan: I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) in the new clause. It adverts to a subject that we debated in Committee.
The Minister, in his concluding remarks, recognised that there is a mischief with which the Bill does not deal. In a sense, it is a new problem arising from the fact that the data subject will now have access to information about himself that he would not necessarily otherwise have had. By empowering him to obtain information about himself, he could be put in the embarrassing position of having information extracted from him that he was reluctant to reveal. He might be subject to pressure to reveal information about which formerly he could have said, with his hand on his heart, "I am sorry; I cannot let you have that information." The new clause is designed to deal with that mischief.
I accept what the Minister has said about the appropriateness of the new clause. It widens the powers of the registrar beyond the scope of his duties. The problems in defining "wrongful request" are real. This should not be the end of the matter. Perhaps the Minister will undertake to consider how best to deal with the problem. If we enact the Bill as it stands, improper pressure may be brought to bear upon a data subject to disclose information that it would be undesirable for him to disclose. The Bill is designed largely to protect the data subject, and clause 21 sets out the new protections provided. I fear that, probably inadvertently, we are exposing the data subject to a danger that did not exist previously.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I do not wish to pursue or press this issue. I am grateful for the support of the Hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Given the fact that there seems to be unanimity on both sides of the House on the importance of this issue, that we agree that there is a potential problem and that it is difficult to find appropriate solutions, I press the Minister to consider this matter yet again in the hope that he or his officials will come up with a suitable remedy that can be added to the Bill during its passage through the other place. I understand the difficulty with which the Minister is confronted, and I ask him to consider the matter without any commitment. In those circumstances, I should be happy to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Waddington: It is not realistic, after the trouble to which we have gone to find a solution to this problem, to say that, before the Bill completes its progress through Parliament, we shall try to find yet another form of words to meet the objections put forward by hon. Members. Having recognised that there is a potential mischief, we must keep the operation of the Bill under close supervision. If it turns out that there is an abuse of the type suggested by hon. Members, it may be possible by means other than legislation to cope with it. The hon. Member


for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) may be thinking about administrative means by which potential employers who abuse the rights given under the Bill would not receive the advantages for which they had hoped.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement. It is a gracious and important concession. On the clear understanding that there is no specific commitment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

NATIONAL SECURITY

'1. For the purposes of this Act there shall be a Deputy Registrar (exempt systems) in this Act referred to as the Deputy Registrar.

2. The duties of the Deputy Registrar shall consist of:—

(a) Monitoring disclosures made under Clause 28 herein.
(b) Producing an annual report specifying the number of disclosures, the category of data disclosed, the number of data subjects to whom the disclosures related, the category of persons to whom they were disclosed and the purposes for which they were disclosed and the report of the Committee thereon shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(c) Applying the subject access provisions of Part III of this Act to personal data exempted from subject access in Part IV of this Act after representations received from a data subject.
(d) Disclosing that personal data to the data subject for the purposes of compensation or rectification and erasure.

3. Any person who discloses personal data of a description to which Clause 28(3) applies for any of the purposes mentioned in Clause 28(1) shall, not more than four months after disclosing them, make a return to the Deputy Registrar in such form as the Secretary' of State may by order prescribe.'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 40, in clause 28, page 22, line 30, at end insert—
'(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to a disclosure made by or on behalf of a data user who—

(a) allows the person to whom the disclosure is made direct access to all or some of the personal data held by him; or
(b) regularly or habitually makes such disclosures; or
(c) at the time of applying for registration under Part H of this Act intended to make such disclosures but failed to include a sufficient indication to that effect in the information furnished to the Registrar in connection with his application for registration; or
(d) at any time after becoming a registered data user formed such an intention but failed within a reasonable time to apply to the Registrar for an appropriate alteration of the particulars included in the entry relating to him, or to make an appropriate fresh application for registration.'.

Mr. Howell: It is important to have a short, although vital, discussion on national security as it affects data information. The purpose of the new clause and amendment No. 40 should be debated to express that importance. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will agree that some protection is needed for citizens who are aggrieved about information kept about them in terms of national security. I understand the Government's approach to national security matters and the belief that that information should not be available to data subjects, even though it is of great concern to them.
I recall the Jan Martin case, which was a difficult case and caused great distress to and imposed penalties on a

person who was later proved lo be innocent. Information about that lady, based entirely on false identification, was kept in the files of the special branch. That information said that she was a potential security risk. For 10 years, she was unable to obtain work, and suffered great hardship and distress. That information would not have come to light but for the fact that her family had a connection with the police service and were able over a long period to burrow into the matter, persisting in their work because of the knowledge that Jan Martin was innocent and was not, as suspected, a member of the Bader-Meinhof gang. It was put right finally, but it raises a real issue. We discussed the point in Committee.
The new clause is in accordance with an idea that I floated in Committee. I asked the Minister whether he would kindly consider it. The proposal is that there should be someone —in Committee I described him as a national security or data protection ombudsman—who was of impeccable reputation, with all the necessary security clearance, who would carry the confidence of the Minister and the House. We define him as the "Deputy Registrar (exempt systems)".
At the request of a person who thought that inaccurate information was being recorded and used against him the deputy registrar would have the right to study all the confidential, classified information so that he could say to the aggrieved person, "I have looked at the information against you, and I can assure you that there is no information kept here that is injurious to your interests," or, alternatively, he may say, "I have looked at the information. It seems to me to be relevant, and that is all you need to know."
Such a procedure would create confidence in the system. It seems to be a vacuum in the Bill with which we should deal. We should not just interest ourselves in the new clause with the security of the state. Information about personal affairs could be held in social security records which might be disclosed to the police. I am thinking now of alleged social security fraud cases. They would be exempt.
Most hon. Members receive an increasing number of complaints from constituents about information being held which has led to investigations of alleged social security frauds. Cohabiting causes some anxiety in some of the complaints that I have received. Some ladies who may be divorced or adrift from their partners take new partners or "visitors". Although they are doing something entirely acceptable they find themselves being investigated because someone has alleged that they are living on the earnings of some man. If there is a factual basis for such allegations no one would object to the inquiries being made, but we do not know and cannot find the original information. I have had to go to the DHSS office which serves my constituency on at least four or five occasions over the past 12 months to discover the allegation that has caused an offensive inquiry. When such an investigation takes place there is not just an inquiry of the poor, unfortunate lady, but her relatives are visited and asked what they know about her and her life style. Neighbours are visited and all kinds of inquiries are made which can be distressing and damaging.
The matter must be considered. The data subject—if that is the phrase we must use to describe people in such distress—is entitled to know what information is held


about him, and such information should not be covered by an exemption on the grounds of national security or availability to the police.
We are asking that such information disclosed to the police should be made available to a person such as the deputy registrar, a man of impeccable standing, whom in new clause 6 we are asking should have access to the information on behalf of the aggrieved person so that he can satisfy him that his fears are unfounded or tell him that there is some substance in the information, which requires further investigation.
I am sure that the Minister will recognise the problem. He did so in Committee although he could not move towards meeting us on it. I trust that on further reflection he will think it right to include the new clause, or something like it, in the Bill even at this late stage. The Jan Martin type of case needs protection.

Sir Dudley Smith: I have a certain amount of sympathy for what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said. As he is aware, I fully support the measure, but the old maxim, know your enemies, is paramount here. It surely is the basis of any democracy that national security must be preserved and, even if there is a rare mistake, however regrettable and reprehensible, we cannot make the changes that he suggests just because such a mistake happens.
All kinds of data are kept in the cause of national security, most of which it would be wholly undesirable to disclose to the individual or to third parties. It is necessary to keep it for the maintenance of peace and the nation's well-being. I suggest that it is not the issue that causes most, if any, worry to the individual. The matter that causes anxiety relates to professional secrecy. As has been said in previous debates, people are extremely sensitive about medical records, and their relationship with doctors, banks, accountants, solicitors or any professional person. They want to have the relationship respected. Although I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at, I do not believe that it will be in the national interest to pursue the point and I hope that my hon. and learned friend will reject it.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The heading for this new clause is "National security", as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) said. While I am happy that the new clause should be discussed with amendment No. 40, our amendment is not related to national security but to whether the exemption from non-disclosure procedures in clause 28(3) can be overriden.
I accept that new clause 8 and amendment No. 40 are complementary in a sense because one provides a back-up for the other. New clause 8 provides a mechanism by which we can consider disclosures between Government authorities and Government data bases, or private data bases and Government data bases, after the event, whereas amendment No. 40 provides some safeguard before the event.
The purpose of the new clause and the amendment is to provide a basic control and scrutiny of the passing of information about individuals between the state's computers and from private data bases to state data bases. The power and comprehensiveness of the state's

computers have grown to a frightening extent. They are now capable of interlinking with each other in a way which provides the mechanism, if not the reality, of the big brother state.
Further development of the state's computer system is now in hand or planned. It amounts to a quantum leap forward in their power and capacity for linkage. The current control of the exchange of information on the individual between the state's data bases is almost non-existent. These technical changes have, even with the present state of development, increased the power of the state massively, to the individual's cost. Clause 28, so far from addressing itself to the danger, amounts to little more than a charter for the petty bureaucrat to have access to, and peddle in, personal details to which he has no right. It may even constitute a framework within which an unscrupulous Government could bring about the so-called 1984 state.
In due course I shall describe the main elements of the present state computer systems, and the links between them. As I said on Second Reading, one of the key recommendations of the Lindop report was that it was highly undesirable to have what Lindop referred to as a universal personal identifier. That would be a single personal identifier to be held by all the State's computers. The use of a single reference number would give access to all the information held by the State. Lindop said that the universal personal identifier was something that at all costs we should strive against. He also said that there was a safeguard for the individual in his position as against the state in a certain fractionalisation of the state's computers, so that there was no single massive system connecting the computer systems of the DHSS, the police, the Inland Revenue, the driver and vehicle licensing centre and the Customs and Excise. Some separation would be an essential safeguard. We should bear in mind those two recommendations by Lindop.
I do not wish to bore the House or to detain it for too long, but I must go into some detail about the nature of the state's present computer systems. First, there are the police computers. I fully accept, as my hon. Friends will accept, that there is an essential need for the organs of the State to have high-technology equipment of the greatest efficiency. That will not necessarily lead to less personal contact. By taking the drudgery out of work, such equipment may make possible more personal contact. We are not opposed to the use of computers by the organs of the state.
I was not a member of the Committee on this Bill—I was a member of another Committee at that time—but I understand that it was said in Committee that the police computer is very powerful. It was revealed in Committee that there are 13 million vehicle owners on the computer, some 50,000 wanted persons and some 6 million criminal records. There is a terminal in every main police station in the country — that is 600 on the 1980 figure, and there may well be more than that now. Access to the computer is by input of name and date of birth or of car registration number.
As well as that computer system, and running in parallel with it—indeed, there are indications that the two systems may be linked in some ways — there are various constabulary computers on which is kept not just information but intelligence—some might call it gossip rather than intelligence. There is some evidence that these computers are indeed linked to the police national


computer in certain cases. There is some evidence that there is the capacity to pass information between the constabulary police computer and the national computers.
That massive computer system runs alongside—it is almost linked to—the DVLC computer system. I shall be happy to give way to the Minister if I am wrong, but I am informed that a daily tape is passed from the DVLC to the police national computer, providing an update. There is some degree of interoperability between the two computer systems.
I also understand from a recent article in New Scientist that cameras have recently been placed by the M1, on an experimental basis, whose task is to record into the computers the registration numbers of vehicles using the MI. That is a pilot scheme, but it extends the use of computers out into the roads of Britain. It is possible to identify vehicle registration numbers and, within a matter of seconds, identify the car owner.

Sir Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman's information is somewhat out of date. For some years now the police have been able to follow cars, telephone headquarters and, via the computer, obtain information about those cars within a few minutes. Many criminals have been caught in that way.

Mr. Ashdown: I am well aware of that. However, there is now the capacity for that to be done not by police officers but remotely, by cameras. There is a fundamental difference. A camera operated by remote control is taking down every car number —not just the numbers of selected cars — and feeding it into the police national computer. That must disturb the hon. Gentleman as much as it disturbs me.
There is a massive computer system in the hands of the police, and no doubt that is right and proper. It contains the names and addresses of about half the population, and has a growing capacity to trace the location of any individual.
The second massive state computer system belongs to the DHSS. There are seven or eight computers, including those which can trace the location not just of adults but—in order to deal with child benefit—also of children. The biggest of the computers is the departmental general index. It holds some 53 million records, according to the answer to a parliamentary question which I asked recently. Essentially, it is a population register of the whole of Britain. According to the answer to that parliamentary question, one can either feed in the national insurance number and be given — with a response time of five seconds—the name and date of birth of the subject, or one can feed in the name and date of birth and be given the national insurance number.
The departmental index is kept at Newcastle upon Tyne, and there are 140 terminals there through which access to it can be obtained. The system is therefore limited at present. However, the 1982 Green Paper "Social Security Operational Strategy" proposes that there should ultimately be 20,000 terminals giving immediate access to the index—one in every DHSS office in the country, giving access to every junior clerk. This system will combine all the previous computers within a single system — the departmental central register, the child benefit register, and the others. One will be able to feed in either name and date of birth or the national insurance number. The national insurance number will give access to the file on the subject.
Under clause 28(3), although the person who makes the suggestion will not have access, it will be possible to transfer the information to an officer of the law. Presumably that will mean a police constable or perhaps a Customs and Excise officer, who is also an officer of the law. Access will be made available to assist in the apprehension or prosecution of an offender or to prevent the prosecution of an offence. There will be 20,000 DHSS terminals and 600 PNC terminals. Any ordinary police constable will be able to tell a DHSS clerk that he has reason to believe that an offence is about to be committed at point X and to request that information should be provided.
At the moment that is done manually and there are certain safeguards, but in future there will be the possibility of that link at the ordinary level between a junior police constable and a DHSS clerk. In five seconds, the whole file on the massive proposed system will be available. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening.
I should like to measure what is in the Bill against the current practice for the passage of such information. On 7 December 1983 I asked, in a parliamentary question, whether it had been decided to go ahead with the installation of this massive new computer system. I was told, "No, not yet." However, we must recognise that there is evidence to suggest that steps have been taken to go ahead with the computer with 20,000 terminals. I do not accept some of the more sinister interpretations put on the introduction of the plastic national insurance card, but it will enable the process to be more mechanical. Its introduction must show a commitment to the new and massive computer system. I am not arguing against its use, but such massive power available at junior levels requires some safeguards to ensure that information is not too readily accessible to those who should not have it.
6.30 pm
I understand that there are two separate Inland Revenue computer systems—the PAYE system on the employed and another on the self-employed. The former covers anybody with a job and anybody with a pension. I am told that it has been decided to build a national network so that the entire PAYE payroll in Britain is put on one computer. In a pilot scheme in the west midlands, 651,000 people are covered and there are 375 terminals. That represents one terminal for 1,700 people. That is an extraordinary density of terminals. I understand that the system is to be installed for the whole of Britain by 1988. Surveys have already been conducted in Inland Revenue offices to decide where the terminals should go. I also understand that large firms that employ more than 500 people have been visited by the Inland Revenue to discuss how the information can best be put on the new sytem.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I have been fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's description of various computer systems and, on the whole, have been encouraged rather than dismayed by them. However, I cannot understand how amendment No. 40, to which I think he is speaking, will allay his fears.

Mr. Ashdown: I warned the House that I intended to examine all of the state's computer systems so that it can see the size of the threat. Amendment No. 40 provides a minimalist capacity to register an intention so that we


would be able to scrutinise what is happening and where. We are discussing provisions that would bring the process out into the open.
It is planned that there will be 20,000 terminals in the PAYE system—one for every clerical officer, not one for every office or outstation. It is being set up with data from the DHSS. It is important to recognise that cross-operability is already being built up between the Inland Revenue system and the DHSS system. That is frightening. A parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) in March 1982 confirmed that the Inland Revenue is already using data provided by the DHSS to set up its files. I understand that the pilot scheme allows an Inland Revenue operative to key in a national insurance number and, automatically, the entire DHSS file is loaded on to the Inland Revenue file. If, when the computer system is set up, a member of the public goes to an Indland Revenue office wishing to make an inquiry and does not know his national insurance number or gives the wrong one, the Inland Revenue will have to get access to his file by passing through the DHSS computer.
Employers pass on end-of-year details on their employees separately through the DHSS and the Inland Revenue. In future, such details will be sent only to the DHSS which will then pass the entire file on to the Inland Revenue. The information will include the employee's current private address. We are not certain why the address is suddenly being required as I understand that it has never had to be provided before. Previously, the DHSS has maintained addresses that are largely out of date except for those who receive benefit. Under the new system, 53 million addresses will be painlessly and accurately updated with the other information. I remind the House that such information is available to quite junior law enforcement officers if they suspect the commission of an offence or wish to prevent an offence. If, for example, someone is suspected of committing an offence—say allowing his dog to foul a footpath—a police constable will be able, under the Bill, to go to the Inland Revenue and get the necessary information.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am five years out of touch with these matters but I find it offensive that a policeman should be able to do that. I suspect what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can he prove it?

Mr. Ashdown: What I have argued is set out clearly in the Bill. Clause 28(3) says:
Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provision in any case in which—
(a) the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) above".
Subsection (1) says:
Personal data held for any of the following purposes—

(a) The prevention or detention of crime;
(b) The apprehension or prosecution of offenders".


The Bill is quite clear. It is perfectly possible for a police constable who wants to prevent a crime or apprehend an offender to get access to information.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Can the hon. Gentleman assist me and, I suspect, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) by advising the House what amendment No. 40 means? I have read it time and again without success and have waited for a definition.

Mr. Ashdown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. I apologise if I am taking a long time, but I have a lot to say and intend to say it because there is a great threat here. Conservative Members might be better advised to pin their ears back and listen because there are some serious problems that have not so far been identified concerning what is happening with the state's computers and what the Bill will do to provide safeguards.

Mr. Hickmet: Perhaps I might advise the hon. Gentleman that it was on clause 28 that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East voted against the Government, so the hon. Gentleman should not start hectoring us. I would like to know what amendment No. 40 means, since, because of the use of the English and the construction employed in its drafting, I simply do not understand it.

Mr. Ashdown: I shall explain what it means in good time.
It is worrying that the Inland Revenue and DHSS files are linked to the extent of being just one file. That is of great concern. Not only are 20,000 DHSS computer terminals planned around the country but there will be a further 20,000 Inland Revenue terminals. Therefore, there will be a total of 40,000 terminals at which the information can be obtained.
Essentially, there will be access through a single, de facto, universal, personal identifier of a national insurance number to information about the total population of Britain. The following information will be available on the computer for every individual—name, address, date of birth, family details, income, occupation, children's details, with whom they live, wife or husband, and whether they are working, who their employer is, the job, and how much is earned. All that information is readily obtainable by a police constable who wishes to go along to the local DHSS clerk because he may wish to prevent a crime. There is more to come.
We must add to that the second Inland Revenue computer which deals with schedule D, in other words the self-employed. The House will be interested to know that there are two computers dealing with schedule D, one at Shipley in Yorkshire and the other at Cumbernauld in Scotland. According to a reply to a parliamentary question that I asked on 13 March these two computers became operational in January. They contain a complete index of all the self-employed, 4·2 million, and whether they are paying tax. The time to get a response to an inquiry will be only two or three seconds. Those computers currently provide the name and address of the person, the tax reference number, whether that person is paying tax and how much is being paid.
That is not too bad because there is only a payments system, which merely indicates how much tax is owed. However, I understand that those computers are to be revised and updated. At present the clerk does a taxation calculation and merely loads into the computer the sum owed. After the changes those computers will hold the tax calculation which the clerk has done. At this point it will parallel precisely the PAYE system with full personal details, what the business is and the profits. Again, these details will be available if there is a suspicion that a crime is about to take place, or has taken place or in regard to the prosecution or detection of an offender.
To all that must be added the Customs and Excise computer about which I still have parliamentary questions to be answered. That computer carries full details from the driver and vehicle licensing centre. Again there is a wide dissemination of terminals. Presumably Customs and Excise officers are law enforcement officers since the collection of taxes is covered in the Bill.
The interoperability and the capacity to pass information on suspicion that a crime has been committed are unchecked in the legislation. What then is the current practice upon which the Government are depending? Current practice for the passing of information between the DHSS or another organ of the state and the police is contained in a Home Office circular on crime and kindred matters, paragraphs 177–188. The DHSS is told to exchange information with the police "orally and in confidence". In other words, currently there is no record or check. A police constable may turn up at a DHSS office and ask for information. That information will not be recorded as it is passed over. It will be given orally and in confidence.
The Home Office circular does not give a ruling about the level at which the information may be passed. It could be done at the most junior level by a police constable or a customs officer approaching a DHSS or Inland Revenue clerk.

Sir Dudley Smith: rose——

Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way when I have finished this part. The circular says— [Interruption]. I have not finished. There is more to come. This is a very serious subject and I intend to complete it however much hon. Members may seek to interrupt.

Mr. Denis Howell: We are trying to make progress and we gave the hon. Member the facility of discussing this amendment with ours. He started by indicating that he would make a short speech. The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for 25 minutes. I hope I am not here when he makes a long speech.

Mr. Ashdown: I made no commitment to a short speech. I have a lot to say and I intend to go through with it. I will get through it faster if right hon. and hon. Members do not interrupt.

Sir Dudley Smith: rose——

Mr. Ashdown: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
The Home Office circular says:
In general, requests for addresses should be made direct to manager".
Since the information is passed over orally and in confidence who is to know whether the request has been made through the manager? The circular continues:
The fact that assistance has been given or information has been passed by the DHSS to the police … should as far as practical, remain confidential".
There is a complete lack of scrutiny. I hope the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), who, I think, is reading the report of the Committee, is paying attention. I make the point to him that one of the important parts of clause 6 is that where information is passed to the police it will at least be recorded. Furthermore, amendment No. 40 requires that a statement is made at the point of registration that the person who is passing the information expects to pass it or, according to

a later amendment, that it has become common practice to pass it. Both proposals merely seek to highlight for the public the passsage of the information.

Sir Dudley Smith: rose——

Mr. Ashdown: I have given way to a lot of interventions and I should like to come to a close. The Home Office circular may be adequate for the current passing of information between the DHSS or the Inland Revenue and the police, but it cannot be adequate when there will be access by the clerk to a massive amount of information on practically every person in Britain.
The Government have argued time and time again that they do not wish the provisions and safeguards of the Bill to be extended to manual information because there is a quantum difference between manual information and data-processed information; the data-processed information is available more readily and faster. The Government cannot have it both ways. Because they will increase enormously the power of access they cannot say they must not also increase commensurately the safeguards.

Sir Dudley Smith: Interesting though it is, I do not want to prolong the hon. Gentleman's speech. He has beer going at quite a pace and has been giving a lot of facts and figures. One point was challenged by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Is the hon. Gentleman saying that at the moment, if someone is involved in an accident or a minor offence, a policeman who wants to know, legitimately, whether that person is the owner of the vehicle can put the car number through the computer and at the same time get a printout of all details about the man, including whether he is self-employed, salaried, paying tax and so on?

Mr. Ashdown: No.

Sir Dudley Smith: That is the impression the hon. Member has given.

Mr. Ashdown: If that was the impression he got, either the hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening carefully or I may have imperfectly described it. It is possible for a police constable to go to a DHSS office and say, "I suspect that an offence was being committed. Will you please give me the total information you have?" The Bill will allow him to do that. Indeed, current Home Office law allows it. He can say, "I should like information on this person." There is nothing in the Bill or in current Home Office practice to stop that. He does not get that information automatically at the time, but he can certainly request it.

Mr. Steve Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: I think that this ought to be the last intervention as the whole House seems keen that I should bring my remarks to a close.

Mr. Norris: None can be keener than Ito see the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to their long-awaited close, but he touches on a particular difficulty with the often misunderstood idea that the Bill will somehow allow a police constable to do things that he was not previously permitted to do. That fundamental misunderstanding has run through all that the hon. Gentleman has been saying for the past half hour. The Bill confers no such rights.

Mr. Ashdown: I am not making that claim. I am saying that there is a quantum difference involved. The


Government themselves have said that the Bill does not cover manually held data because there is a quantum difference between the safeguards needed for data which can be transferred only in fairly small amounts, with some difficulty and quite slowly and the safeguards needed for data protection. The hon. Gentleman nods, so I assume that he takes that point.
The growth of the state computers and their capacity to interlink will allow more massive and easier transfer of data than ever before. That is why the existing safeguards are inadequate and new safeguards are required. My point is not that the Bill gives powers that were not allowed before but that it will permit damage that was never possible before because it deals not with manual data but with automatically processed data.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Everyone accepts that at present this information is uncontrolled and without the law. Amendment No. 40 would limit the exceptions provided for when the Bill is passed. The Bill restricts certain areas but not this one. The state has enormous powers and will continue to have them if nothing is done to limit them.

Mr. Ashdown: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely the point. I have sought bluntly to point out the nature and scale of the problem and of the threat that has grown up under our noses as computer systems have become interlinked, easier to use and more widely disseminated. That is why further safeguards are needed.
Finally, it is important to understand not just the scope of data holding by the state at present but the way in which it has been developed. There has been very scant regard to the necessity of data protection. I understand that the new systems will require codeword access, but that is not a very sophisticated safeguard. Any firm using the new data processing equipment for a payroll system is required to log in every key stroke when seeking to extract information, but I understand that no such audit trail is required by the DHSS or Inland Revenue system.
The scale and nature of data processing by state computers has grown massively and must be controlled. New clause 6 and amendment No. 40 together go some way towards that end. The Labour proposal tries to bring the interchange of information out into the public arena so that it can be assessed. One will then know how many exchanges have taken place and presumably questions can be asked in the House about the nature of those exchanges. Our amendment would require firms to include the possibility of the transfer of that data being registered in their initial application or afterwards if it is proved that they carry out that kind of operation.
The power of the state computers has increased, is increasing and, if the Government have their way, will shortly further increase by a quantum leap into a dangerously expanded capacity for universal data holding and access. They are now capable of linking up to form a fabulous big brother machine with access to more than 40,000 places throughout the country and with a response time measured in seconds from the inquiry to the production of full personal details on practically every person in the land. In short, the mechanism for the big brother state is either with us already or about to arrive. I do not accuse the Government of trying to create such

a state. The Minister may not even realise the potential of what is happening. It is possible that no one realises it. Like the rary, the system is just growing and growing.
The Bill does nothing to safeguard the individual against that potential which massively shifts the balance of power between state and individual in favour of the state. We have, as it were, a de facto universal personal identifier of the very kind that Lindop warned against. The amendments are at best minimalist and fall far short of what many of us want—a proper system with tighter control of the exchange of information between the state's data bases. The new clause and the amendment provide only for a process of registration and scrutiny and for the recording of instances when state computers exchange personal information or the state organ demands such information from private data bases.
I hope that the Minister will accept at least one, if not both, of the proposals. I should make it clear at this point that if new clause 6 is not carried we shall probably press for a Division on amendment No. 40.

Mr. Waddington: I have listened with great attention to all that has been said by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I think that the whole House will agree that very little of it had any bearing on amendment No. 40, which in turn has very little to do with new clause 6. I have thus had to make some rapid adjustments to my notes so as to do justice to the points made by all hon. Members who have spoken. I am sure that the House wishes me to deal with the terms of each proposal.
New clause 6 seeks to establish a deputy registrar with certain duties relating to data which are exempt both from subject access and from the non-disclosure provisions. I shall deal first with subject access as that was the burden of the new clause that we discussed in Committee. It is suggested that the deputy registrar should have two specific duties. As I tried to explain in Committee, however, I do not see either adding significantly to the armoury already at the disposal of the registrar.
7 pm
First, the deputy registrar has a duty to apply the subject access provisions to data that are exempt from subject access. I do not think that that will gain any prizes for clear drafting. Does it mean that the deputy registrar must be given access to data on request, although it is covered by the subject access exemption, or that he can, as it were, override the exemption in a particular case to enable a data subject to have access, despite the likelihood of prejudice to, say, the detection of crime? I do not know.
Although either interpretation is possible — and therefore to include it in the Bill would lead to all kinds of trouble—I divine that the Opposition mean that the new clause has the former effect. If it has the former effect the registrar can do that already. If a data subject, in the words of the new clause, makes representations to him, saying that he is worried about, say, the accuracy of data being held by the police about him and he cannot get access to the data because they are covered by clause 28(1), there is no barrier to the registrar becoming involved. Just because data are exempt from subject access does not mean that they are exempt from the application of the other principles. That is why references to "exempt systems" are so dangerously misleading. The nub of the matter is that if data are inaccurate, the registrar can act to remedy the inaccuracy regardless of whether a subject access exemption applies.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does all that the Minister says apply with equal force to files that are held by the national security services?

Mr. Waddington: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, although new clause 6 is headed "National Security", it has nothing to do with it. The new clause refers to clause 28, and we shall no doubt deal with national security in due course. I shall not be tempted by the hon. Gentleman to talk about national security when he has admitted that that is not what the new clause is about.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Minister has further confirmed the scepticism in my rhetorical question. Is that so?

Mr. Waddington: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman has put his name to a new clause that does not deal with national security, but sets up a deputy registrar who, according to the new clause, has no powers in relation to national security. In those circumstances, it is no use the hon. Gentleman inviting me to tell him now why national security is exempted from the scheme of the Bill. New clause 6 does not make any difference to that exemption. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not recognise that. His new clause deals only with clause 28, which does not deal with national security.
What of the duties given to the deputy registrar in respect of data that are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions? Any user who discloses data to a person who is not registered as a recipient of that data and who, therefore, avails himself of clause 28(3) shall notify the disclosure to the registrar. The registrar must then produce a statistical report on those disclosures for Parliament. That part of the new clause takes us on to different ground. It is familiar. The question of notifying the disclosures was also discussed in Committee. It was then presented in a form that was riddled with defects. The form has changed, but the defects remain.
The requirement to notify disclosures is placed on users without sanctions if they do not conform. No matter. The substance of the argument is whether there is a real advantage in establishing a new regime of form filling in connection with the disclosures. Put briefly, I believe that it would be an unmitigated nuisance to the law enforcement agencies, which have enough on their hands. It would greatly burden the registrar's office. It would be able to make little of the returns that are sent there, without exhaustive accompanying explanation or investigation. It would be of no benefit to data subjects.
Let us assume that the registrar receives many returns from data users, showing that they made disclosures to police forces for crime prevention purposes in respect of one or 100 individuals in a particular category. How will that assist the registrar? He is as likely to hear of abuse of the non-disclosure exemptions without the proposed new bureaucracy as he is with it. When he hears of abuse, he is fully empowered to investigate it.
New clause 6 is, in a sense, two amendments rolled into one. For that reason I have taken time to reply to it. However, I see little merit in either of its parts. The registrar already has ample powers in the areas that the Opposition are concerned about. He can apply the other principles to data that are exempt from subject access. He can consider such data on behalf of a data subject to ensure that users are not in breach of the principles. That includes checking for accuracy.
The registrar has the power to satisfy himself that the exemptions are not being abused. Indeed, he can even prosecute if data are disclosed to a person who is not registered as a recipient, where the conditions of the non-disclosure exemptions are not satisfied. The new clause is not acceptable. It is so defective in its drafting as to be totally flawed on that account alone.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I waited until the Minister reached a logical conclusion on new clause 6 before asking questions. The new clause deals with those files that are exempted from the subject access provisions. Clause 29 enables the Secretary of State to make orders specifying areas where access is restricted. As I understand it, the Minister and his Department are already in consultation with many organisations, including the British Medical Association, about areas where subject access will be restricted to health or medical information. I wonder whether this is the opportunity for the Minister to throw light on the nature of those consultations and what he has in mind, including his perception of the areas in which subject access will be restricted under clause 29.

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that a later amendment on the Notice Paper refers to that matter. In those circumstances, I would not be serving the interests of the House to be diverted into a different realm. It will be more convenient to the House for me to deal with amendment No. 40, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for Yeovil. The hon. Gentleman gave many fanciful examples of how the police can and do obtain information from various Government organisations — for example the DHSS. I must make it plain that if a police constable approaches the DHSS for information in connection with an offence, the exemption from the non-disclosure provisions could be claimed only where disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating an offence. The information requested must be relevant to the alleged offence. It is difficult to believe that DHSS information would be relevant to a parking offence. In any case, the prejudice test must be met. We must consider the reality of the situation.
The hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to define the circumstances in which prejudice tests, under clause 28(3), are not met. Although the amendment sets out four sets of circumstances, there is a common thread running through them all. The hon. Gentleman is really saying that where a disclosure for one of the specified purposes is planned or envisaged in advance, it cannot benefit from the exemption in clause 28(3). That is what he was saying, although it took him a long time to do so. To imply that where the user knows that he will be making disclosures for the specified purposes, the exemption is unnecessary as he can, and should, register the police, Customs and Excise or Inland Revenue as recipients of his data, is to miss the point of the exemption. It is true that the exemption is designed to allow one-off disclosures, whose need had not been foreseen, to be made without breach of the non-disclosure provisions. The hon. Gentleman obviously accepts that that is right, because his amendment would allow such disclosures to retain the benefit of clause 28(3). However, that is not the only justification for clause 28(3).
Let us take the case of a data user who is an employer and who had decided that in certain cirumcstances he would be prepared to disclose data about his employees to


the police—for example, if they are investigating a particularly serious offence or an offence which, although not serious, is particularly prevalent in the area and about which he feels strongly. Although he might be prepared to disclose data to the police, he might at the same time feel that it would be unreasonable if, in order to do so, he had to state in his registration particulars, to be public knowledge available for his own employees to read, "I shall give the police information about my employees if they ask for information about an offence of this, that or the other nature." If we were to say that such a user had to declare in his register entry an intention to disclose data for the specified purposes in clause 28, that might be enough to tip the balance and to make him decide that, in the interests of good relations with his staff, he would not make the disclosures. The police might thus be prevented from gaining valuable information, the lack of which might seriously prejudice their investigations.
It will be clear from that example that foreknowledge that disclosures may be made does not necessarily imply that they can safely be described in a public register without any possibility of prejudice. Public knowledge that disclosures might take or have taken place might itself be suffcient to prejudice law enforcement or revenue purposes either by discouraging users who would otherwise be prepared to co-operate with the police from passing on valuable information or by alerting possible suspects.

Mr. Ashdown: I recognise that the Minister is scratching around to find an argument for not accepting my amendment, but the clear conclusion is that he is perfectly happy with the way that things are. Is he happy that, with the immense new power that will be in people's hands to have access to information, the current system for controlling it, which is practically non-existent, will be sufficient to provide safeguards for the individual in the situation into which we are now moving?

Mr. Waddington: The Government are not satisfied with the existing protection for the individual's privacy. That is one of the reasons why we introduced the Bill. The Government are equally satisfied that——

Mr. Ashdown: rose——

Mr. Waddington: I shall not give way just now.
The Government are equally satisfied that there have to be special exemptions from the access and disclosure provisions in the interests of the detection and prevention of crime. The hon. Gentleman's amendment is, I understand, directed to those exemption provisions. He talked for a long time; I shall talk for a shorter time. We are talking about one simple matter—how extensive the exemption provisions should be to protect society from wrongdoers. If the hon. Gentleman had addressed his remarks to that narrow issue, the past three quarters of an hour might have been profitable.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I am extremely interested to hear him say that the Government are dissatisfied with the present situation with regard to disclosure, for example, between the police and the Department of Health and Social Security. Will he tell me how the Bill in any way alters

the current situation? The Minister said that he was dissatisfied, and that the Bill had been introduced to try to correct the situation, but in this instance it does not provide a further safeguard in any way, unless the Minister can tell me otherwise.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman must not misquote me. I did not say that I was dissatisfied with present practice with regard to disclosure by the DHSS. I was asked specifically whether I was satisfied with the present situation. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the protection of individuals. I replied that the Government would not have introduced the Bill had they not believed that it was necessary to increase the right of the individual to privacy. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that I was accepting his argument that there was something wrong with the present amount of disclosure by the DHSS. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the provisions in the Bill that allow exemption from the non-disclosure provisions.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has now claimed that the Bill increases safeguards for the individual in this instance. Will he tell me how and where?

Mr. Waddington: Again, the hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. When I replied to him, I was not referring to this particular instance. I replied, in perfectly clear terms, that one of the objects of the Bill was to increase the privacy of the individual, but at the same time there had to be exemption provisions to safeguard society from wrongdoers. That is precisely why clause 28 is in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is saying that the exemption provisions in clause 28 should be weakened. He believes that they are too potent and that we are giving too much scope to the law enforcement agencies. I do not accept that that is correct. Most of us in the House, throughout our deliberations on the Bill, have recognised that there have to be exemptions to allow the law enforcement agencies to do their work. That is why clause 28 exists. What the hon. Gentleman asks for in his amendment would impinge greatly on the force of those exemptions, which are so necessary.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I should like to confirm that our interpretation of the new clause, as being related to some extent to national security, is correct and that the Minister is incorrect. Paragraph (c) states:
Applying the subject access provisions of Part III of this Act to personal data exempted from subject access in Part IV of this Act".
We are applying the duties of the deputy registrar to personal data exempted from subject access in part IV. Clause 27 states:
Personal data are exempt from the provisions of Part II of this Act … for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is wrong, because data concerning national security are not exempt from the subject access provisions of the Act. They are exempt from the Act, full stop.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In that case there is greater force in what we are saying, and we are right in attempting to ensure that the systems and files, whether they are enumerated in clause 28 or do not come within the remit of the Bill, are subject to scrutiny such as that laid down in new clause 6.
We are concerned that there is a whole range of files containing highly personal, sensitive and confidential information on individuals, to which, under the Bill, those people will have no access. Clause 28 states:
Personal data held for any of the following purposes—

(a) the prevention or detection of crime;
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or
(c) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty, are exempt from the subject access provisions".


That is to say that the Minister or I, or any of our constituents, will have no entitlement to know what information is contained on any file that is covered by any one of those three areas. They are massive areas. As the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said in his grandiloquent tour de force, anything can be hidden under the umbrella of
the prevention or detection of crime".

Mr. Ashdown: rose——

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I shall not give way.
That covers the most serious to the most trivial of offences which the hon. Gentleman described. All those offences are beyond the remit of the individual on whom the information is held.
The Bill goes further than that. Under clause 29, the Secretary of State is given power to prevent an individual from having access to files about him, even if they contain information about his physical or mental health, or to any information
held by government departments or local authorities or by voluntary organisations or other bodies designated by or under the order".
Therefore, in a whole range of areas, the individual would not have access to information on files.
I am sorry that the Minister was unable to respond to my perfectly reasonable request for information about the regulations under clause 29, on which he is presently consulting. The reason that the Minister could not respond was that he had not reached that page in his brief. Presumably that is the page that he is reading now. It is important to know what exemptions the Government propose should be applied under clause 29 when the Bill becomes law. It is a reasonable request and it should have been well within the Minister's ability to give that information.
In any event, the Bill clearly states that there are areas to which the data subject will not have access, and there may be a massive range of other areas where the Secretary of State will issue orders not allowing an individual to have access to information about him. Yet those are the areas where there have been abuses. In Committee we heard of cases where information contained in police or national security files was inaccurate, in some cases mischievous, and in many cases highly damaging to the individual. If the individual, or a deputy registrar on his behalf, had access to that information, mistakes could have been corrected and damage to the individual prevented. Yet the Minister refuses to answer even that reasonable request.
We accept that there are some files held by the police or the security services to which the individual should not have access, but we do not accept—nor did the Lindop committee — that those files should be beyond all scrutiny and completely uncheckable. We ask that someone with security clearance, such as a deputy registrar, on behalf of the individual, should be able to examine files that we accept the individual should not see.
We want such a safeguard because we know the damage that can be caused to the individual if inaccurate or mischievous information is contained in those files.
We are extremely upset that the Minister could not, either in Committee or today, give an assurance that the safeguards will be provided. In the absence of such an assurance, I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support new clause 6 and amendment No. 40.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 187.

Division No. 344]
]7.22 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Janner, Hon Greville


Anderson, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Ashdown, Paddy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Ashton, Joe
Kirkwood, Archibald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Lamond, James


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Litherland, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Loyden, Edward


Bell, Stuart
McCartney, Hugh


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bermingham, Gerald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Bidwell, Sydney
McKelvey, William


Blair, Anthony
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McTaggart, Robert


Buchan, Norman
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Madden, Max


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Conlan, Bernard
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Corbett, Robin
Nellist, David


Cowans, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Crowther, Stan
Pendry, Tom


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pike, Peter


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dubs, Alfred
Redmond, M.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Eadie, Alex
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eastham, Ken
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Sheerman, Barry


Ewing, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Spearing, Nigel


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Flannery, Martin
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Forrester, John
Strang, Gavin


Foulkes, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Freud, Clement
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


George, Bruce
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Godman, Dr Norman
Tinn, James


Gourlay, Harry
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wareing, Robert


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Welsh, Michael


Haynes, Frank
Wilson, Gordon


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Winnick, David


Home Robertson, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Mr. Don Dixon and


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)





NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Budgen, Nick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bottomley, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)






Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, David John.


Cockeram, Eric
Major, John


Conway, Derek
Malone, Gerald


Cope, John
Mather, Carol


Crouch, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Dickens, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dicks, Terry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Durant, Tony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Fallon, Michael
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Favell, Anthony
Moate, Roger


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus


Forth, Eric
Moore, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fox, Marcus
Mudd, David


Franks, Cecil
Murphy, Christopher


Freeman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Neubert, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Nicholls, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Norris, Steven


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Goodlad, Alastair
Oppenheim, Philip


Gower, Sir Raymond
Osborn, Sir John


Grant, Sir Anthony
Page, John (Harrow W)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Ground, Patrick
Parris, Matthew


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hanley, Jeremy
Porter, Barry


Harris, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Harvey, Robert
Powley, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Rathbone, Tim


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hawksley, Warren
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hayes, J.
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hayhoe, Barney
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hayward, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rowe, Andrew


Heddle, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hickmet, Richard
Ryder, Richard


Hind, Kenneth
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hirst, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Holt, Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hooson, Tom
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sims, Roger


Hunter, Andrew
Skeet, T. H. H.


Irving, Charles
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Speller, Tony


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Spencer, Derek


Key, Robert
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knox, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lawrence, Ivan
Tapsell, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Terlezki, Stefan


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lightbown, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Lilley, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Luce, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lyell, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Waddington, David


Macfarlane, Neil
Walden, George


MacGregor, John
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, C, (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Watson, John
Woodcock, Michael


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitfield, John
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. Donald Thompson.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 8

CODE OF PRACTICE

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to make and publish Advisory Codes of Practice for guidance to data users in order to give effect to the Data Protection Principles.

(2) Before any such Advisory Code is made, the registrar shall:—

(a) Consult trade associations or other bodies representing data users.
(b) Consult bodies representing data subjects.
(c) Give public notice of any draft Code of Practice by inviting objections and representations.
(d) Consider any such objections and representations.'.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 33, in clause 35, page 27, line 40, at end insert—
'(3) It shall be the duty of the Registrar, where he considers it appropriate to do so, to encourage trade associations or other bodies representing data users to prepare, and to disseminate to their members, codes of practice for guidance in complying with the data protection principles.'.
Amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 33, at end insert
', and upon request to express his views on the conformity of such codes of practice with the data protection principles.'.

Mr. Howell: New clause 8 was tabled before we realised that the Government were going to respond with their own amendment. I have already acknowledged that, although I regret that the Government's amendment does not make codes of practice a statutory obligation, it requires the registrar to take initiatives to bring about codes of practice. Therefore, I think that it would not be right for me to take up any more time.
I do not know whether this has ever been done in one speech from the Dispatch Box, but, if what I am saying is correct — and the Minister nods his head — in the course of moving the new clause, I will withdraw it in order that we can make progress.
We very much welcome what the Government have done, although we wish that they had made this a statutory obligation. It would be churlish to proceed with moving new clause 8 in the light of the concessions that we have already gained from the Government on this matter.
Does the Minister nod his head?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In order to have a tidy arrangement and an orderly debate, it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman were to move the new clause, and to withdraw it after the debate, if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) for what he has said. I shall not detain the House long in explaining Government amendment No. 33.
We had some interesting debates on the matter in Committee. There is nothing in the Bill, as cast, to prevent users from producing voluntary codes of practice. The Bill, as drafted, allows them to consult a registrar, and clause 35 makes it clear that the registrar can advise on such matters.
Although there may be no need for any statutory provision to underpin this, I acknowledge the strength of feeling on the matter, and the general desire for the position to be spelt out clearly on the face of the Bill as an encouragement to the registrar and to data users. It was for this reason that I made the undertaking in Committee to consider sympathetically the substantive issues involved, and to come forward with a suitable amendment.
In drawing up our proposals, we have had regard to the precedent provided by section 124 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 commended to us by, among others, the Consumers Association, which imposes a duty on the Director General of Fair Trading to encourage others to draw up codes of practice. I understand that some 19 codes of practice have been drawn up under this legislation, and that they are generally regarded as valuable and as serving a useful purpose. The codes drawn up under the Fair Trading Act have no legal standing, and there is no statutory provision for them to be referred to in legal proceedings. These aspects are important and relevant in the context of the Bill.
As I indicated earlier, the principles must be paramount, and must determine what may or may not be done. I am afraid that there is no way in which codes of practice can be regarded as the standard yardstick in the context of the Bill. Therefore, they cannot properly be given any express evidential value or implicit seal of approval.
I believe that amendment No. 33 goes as far as it can in giving statutory recognition to the value of codes of practice without falling foul of the objections that I voiced in Committee. By imposing a duty on the registrar to encourage representative organisations to formulate and disseminate codes of practice, we have made it clear, in so far as is not already apparent, that he has a positive part to play in this process.
I believe that it would be undesirable and inappropriate for the registrar to be responsible for producing codes of practice, as would have been required under new clause 8, or for approving any particular codes as being in conformity with the principles.
I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Member for Small Heath will agree to withdraw new clause 8 in favour of amendment No. 33, which honours the undertaking given in Committee.

Mr. Maclennan: Amendment (a) builds upon Government amendment No. 33, and would impose a duty upon the registrar to give his views about whether codes of practice drawn up not by him but by others, would be in conformity with the data protection principles. Such a proposal could not impart any firm legal definitions, or amount to a statement of whether the codes were in conformity with the data protection principles from an evidential point of view.
I took it from what the Minister said at the end of his remarks that he was not favourably disposed towards the purposes of amendment (a). In practice, whether or not this is a statutory obligation—and it may be debatable whether it should be—it must be part of the registrar's

function to advise those who seek his expert opinion whether such codes of practice fulfil the purposes that they are intended to fulfil. That would be analogous to the important role of the Director General of Fair Trading under the Fair Trading Act.
It would be sensible if the expertise of the registrar could be made available to those who seek to conform to the Bill's provisions. It would not impose a huge practical burden and would ease the task of those endeavouring to draw up codes of practice. The Bill would be enhanced if such duties were accepted by the registrar. I agree that it may not be desirable to encapsulate that duty in statutory form, but it would be encouraging if it were normal for the registrar to give advice and help when needed.

Mr. Waddington: I did not mention amendment (a) because I was not sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) would press it. There is a serious objection to the proposal in that amendment which would elevate the guidelines to a status above the principles. Clearly that would not do. The principles must be paramount and most people accept that. It cannot be right to say that compliance with a code of practice would be deemed to amount to compliance with the principles since no code could ever guarantee to cover all eventualities. What would be the position of the registrar if he knew that a principle had been breached, but a user was able to demonstrate that he, had complied with a code of practice which said nothing about the particular circumstances which had arisen? Any provision which prevented him from acting in such cases must be wrong.
The same is true of any provision which required the registrar to certify codes of practice. I recognise that amendment (a) does not refer to certification as such, but there is a danger that by singling out this particular aspect of the registrar's powers to give advice — covered generally in clause 35(2)—it will be taken to mean that codes have the registrar's stamp of approval.
As I have already said the registrar's position would be extremely awkward if, after having said that in his view a user complying with a code would be complying with the principles, it then turned out that a breach of the principles had nevertheless occurred. Users would surely have cause to complain if the registrar then took action when they would have assumed that compliance with a code in effect guaranteed them immunity.
We have to make up our minds whether codes of practice or the principles are supreme. We have decided that the registrar should seek observance of the principles because the principles are supreme. That is a complete answer to the amendment to our amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of amendment No. 33 and its relationship to new clause 8. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maclennan: rose——

Mr. Waddington: On a point or order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is trying to catch your eye because we have not yet disposed of his amendment to the Government amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That amendment will be dealt with later. the new clause has been withdrawn and in due course I shall invite the Minister to move amendment No. 33 formally.

Clause 2

THE DATA PROTECTION PRINCIPLES

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
'(5) An order under subsection (3) above modifying the third data protection principle may, to such extent as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, exclude or modify in relation to that principle any exemption from the non-disclosure provisions which is contained in Part IV of this Act; and the exemptions from those provisions contained in that Part shall accordingly have effect subject to any order made by virtue of this subsection.'.
The words "health data" do not appear in the amendment, but they are what the amendment is about. Health data — that is, information about a person's physical or mental health—fall into what we all regard as a particularly sensitive category of personal data. Earlier I quoted the words used by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). He recognised that such data fall into a "special, peculiar and different" category. He said that personal health information was
potentially perhaps more embarrassing and it may also be more damaging."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 5 April 1984; c. 684.]
Both the Council of Europe convention on data protection and the Bill itself already recognise that certain categories of data are of such a nature that they may require special protection. These categories of data include health data as well as data about a person's racial origin, his political opinions or religious beliefs and his criminal convictions.
Data about a person's physical or mental health have given rise to most concern. The health professionals, represented by an inter-professional working group chaired by Sir Douglas Black, have argued strongly that it is particularly important that special safeguards should be introduced to regulate the circumstances in which health data may be disclosed without the consent of a patient. They are concerned that without special safeguards the confidence and trust which exist between a patient and the health professional treating him will be seriously undermined. We understand that concern. It is, of course, of the utmost importance that the patients should be able to confide in health professionals secure in the knowledge that the information which they give will be properly safeguarded and will not be passed to all and sundry. Arrangements already exist within the National Health Service to ensure the protection of medical confidentiality.
The fundamental principle is that health data are not disclosed without the consent of a patient except in certain limited circumstances—for example, where disclosure is made for the purpose of preventing a risk to public health, or where the information is sought by the police in connection with the investigation of an offence. In these cases, special arrangements exist which require the disclosure to be authorised by the responsible professional.
The Bill, of course, does not undermine these existing arrangements, but the health professionals have argued that the Bill gives us the opportunity to put the informal arrangements on to a statutory footing. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services agreed earlier this year to consider a direction to health authorities under the National Health Service Act

1977 requiring them to comply with a code of guidance. Such a code is being prepared in consultation with the inter-professional working group. It will embody the existing arrangements which I have just mentioned. But, of course, a direction made under the National Health Service Act can apply only within the National Health Service. To ensure that similar arrangements may be made outside the NHS, wherever health data are held, I move this amendment.
As I have said, the Bill, following the Council of Europe convention, already recognises that health data are in a special category. Clause 2 therefore provides a power for the Secretary of State to make an order modifying or supplementing the data protection principles to provide additional safeguards in relation to such data. This power would, therefore, allow an order to be made modifying the third principle as it applies to health data and imposing certain restrictions on disclosures of such data. But that alone would not be enough to meet the concerns of the health professionals since the Bill is constructed in such a way that the exemptions which it provides from the non-disclosure provisions would, in effect, take precedence over any such order under clause 2.
In other words, even though an order might say that to ensure compliance with the third principle a user must obtain the consent of a health professional before disclosing data to, say, the police, a user who had not registered the police as a recipient of data could nevertheless disclose the data without first obtaining a professional's consent, because clause 28(2) provides an exemption from any of the registrar's powers to enforce the third principle, whether or not that principle has been modified. It is, therefore, to overcome that difficulty that I move the amendment.
Quite simply, the amendment ensures that any order modifying the third principle may also modify the application of any of the exemptions from the non-disclosure provisions. If the amendment is accepted, we will have available to us the means of regulating the disclosure of health data. It is the Government's intention that that power should be used to impose upon data users who hold personal health data restrictions on the circumstances under which they may disclose such data. It will be necessary to conduct detailed consultations before the precise contents of such an order can be settled, but clearly it will follow very closely the code of guidance being prepared by the Department of Health and Social Security in consultation with the health professions. It may, however, be necessary to make some modifications to take account of the different circumstances that prevail in areas outside the National Health Service. The fundamental principles embodied in the code are, however, likely to be applicable in all situations. In particular, provision will be made to ensure that health data are not disclosed to the police except in cases where the seriousness of the offence in question is such that the public interest must prevail over the subject's right to confidentiality. It goes without saying, of course, that there will be close liaison with the health professionals during preparation of an order.
As I have already said, the whole issue has given rise to some rather extravagant and misleading claims. The Bill, which introduces entirely new safeguards for the protection of personal data, has been represented in some quarters as in some way diminishing the rights of data subjects by reducing the protection afforded to data about


their physical or mental health. That is nonsense. There is no way in which the Bill could ever have had that effect. Its whole purpose and effect is to improve the rights of data subjects, and I believe that it will achieve that purpose. We are, however, taking the opportunity of the Bill to provide that health data, because of their very special nature, are given even greater protection than other less sensitive categories of data. I hope that on that basis the House will welcome the amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I found the Minister's speech remarkable. His interesting dissertion implied that he was about to make a concession that he and his colleagues think wholly unnecessary. He said that information about mental or physical health was adequately protected and that all the fears that have been expressed were unfounded — but, nevertheless, he was taking the opportunity to write the amendment into the Bill.

Mr. Waddington: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the story—which he must have heard — was that in some way the Bill would detract from the existing protection for citizens on the confidentiality of their medical information. That is nonsense. However, that is no reason why we should not listen to representations by the health professionals, who asked us to increase the protection presently given on health data. That is what we are doing. The Bill does not detract from the existing protection, but we are taking the opportunity to increase that protection. I am sure that that will please the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Howell: It pleases me enormously. If that is what the Minister thinks he is doing, I support it. However, it is not what the entire medical profession thought would happen — which is why it mounted an extraordinary lobby and made representations to both Ministers and Opposition spokesmen day in and day out. While the extraordinary discussions were taking place between the BMA and the DHSS, every now and again we heard bits of gossip or gained pieces of information which we put together. However, this is a genial occasion, so I shall not take issue with the Minister, and I know that he does not wish to take issue with me. We are sorry that the same considerations have not been applied to the social services as have been applied to the medical profession. However, we welcome the amendment.
I wish to make one point which the Minister may think frivolous, but it is not. I am concerned about the jargon used in the amendment. No ordinary citizen reading the amendment could possibly understand it. It states:
An order under subsection (3) above modifying the third data protection principle may, to such extent as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, exclude or modify in relation to that principle any exemption from the non-disclosure provisions which is contained in Part IV of this Act; and the exemptions from those provisions contained in that Part shall accordingly have effect subject to any order made by virtue of this subsection.'.
Any ordinary citizen buying a copy of the Act or reading it in the library will not have the faintest notion that it has anything to do with protecting health data. Indeed, the Minister conceded that in his remarks. I do not blame him for the jargon but why on earth cannot we write in plain English exactly what we are doing, which is protecting information about patients in the possession of doctors that should not be disclosed improperly? That is what we are doing, so why the devil cannot we say so in plain English?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3

THE REGISTRAR AND THE TRIBUNAL

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 2, leave out from 'shall' to 'and' in line 5 and insert
'be—(a) persons to represent the interests of data users;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
'and
(c) persons representing those employed in data using industries.'.
and Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39.

Mr. Waddington: The Government amendments grouped together honour an undertaking given in Committee to consider a number of points that had been raised concerning the composition of the Data Protection Tribunal, and to come forward with a suitable formulation to redress the imbalances that had been drawn to Mr. attention.
Two points have been made. First, it was argued that representatives of data users could, in some circumstances, outnumber those representing the interests of data subjects. Secondly, it was put to us that user interests might, in fact, go unrepresented since the technical experts provided for in the Bill were under no duty—indeed; may not be qualified—to put forward the user's point of view. On the face of it, those two points may seem contradictory, but in fact they both have some validity.
I shall rehearse briefly the history of this part of clause 3 and schedule 3. Our original intention was to provide for an entirely neutral tribunal with no sectoral interests being represented. However, since the tribunal would undoubtedly be hearing some cases of a rather technical nature, it seemed appropriate that some technical expertise should be made available to it. We provided that half of the members of a duly constituted tribunal, apart from the chairman, should be technical experts chosen from the pool of people appointed under clause 3(5)(a). Those experts, however, soon came to be regarded by some as representatives of the data user. It was, therefore, suggested that data subjects should in all equity also be specifically represented. On reflection, I think that we accepted this argument a little too readily and took powers to enable the Secretary of State to appoint a certain number of people to represent the interests of the data subjects and for at least one to serve on each duly constituted tribunal. In doing that we now see that we introduced an element of partiality into what was hitherto an entirely neutral tribunal and that there is an argument, in fairness, for saying that the interests of data users should be specifically represented.
Of course, technical experts might in some cases have been able to double as representatives of data users. but the two are not necessarily synonymous. We therefore now accept that it would be more sensible to make specific provision for an equal number of representatives of data users and of data subjects. That is what these amendments seek to do.
8 pm
In making these changes, we lose the pool of computer experts. As I said, these have come to be identified by some as representing the interests of users. Their continued presence might, therefore, be seen as a


complicating factor. Moreover, if we had retained a provision for computer experts to be represented on every duly constituted tribunal, it would have meant that the tribunal would always have had to have had at least five members, whereas three is generally regarded as the optimum number in most cases.
I am afraid, therefore, that the loss of the expert members seems an inevitable but acceptable casualty of the amendment. This does not mean that technical expertise will not be available to the tribunal, but simply that such expertise will be provided by expert witnesses called before the tribunal under the rules of procedure to be made under paragraph 4 of schedule 3.
I hope that what I have said helps to reassure Opposition Members—whose amendment to clause 3 seems to be aimed at the same point — who clearly feel that the interests of data users should be specifically represented. As I explained, the Government accept that view, and our amendment will achieve that result. It is not clear whether, by tabling their amendment, they were seeking to ensure that the pool of technical experts would be retained, as their amendment would simply add an additional category of tribunal members, rather than substituting data user representatives for technical experts. I hope that what I have said will be enough to explain why we do not believe that that would be the right approach. In the light of my remarks, I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to say at once that we find the amendment acceptable. I accept that the wording of the Government amendment is superior to ours, which is as it should be, and for that reason we will not press our amendment No. 5.
The Minister must now find representatives of data users and data subjects. From where will he find them? May we be told how he intends to approach this task? May we be assured that the various parties concerned with data subjects—consumers and others—will be able to submit nominations to the Minister? In other words, how wide will the net be cast before the Minister reaches his judgment?

Mr. Waddington: We shall gladly accept advice from interested bodies. If those bodies furnish us with names, those names will certainly be considered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

PROHIBITION OF UNREGISTERED HOLDING ETC. OF PERSONAL DATA

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 32, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) A servant or agent of a person to whom subsection (2) above applies shall, as respects personal data held by that person, be subject to the same restrictions on the use, disclosure or transfer of the data as those to which that person is subject under paragraphs (b), (d) and (e) of that subsection and, as respects personal data to be held by that person, to the same restrictions as those to which he is subject under paragraph (c) of that subsection.'.
This amendment was not foreshadowed in our Committee proceedings. Indeed, the point that it addresses was not raised directly. However, even when a point is not directly raised, it sometimes happens that something else

that is said triggers off a train of thought. That is what happened here, and that train of thought led to the amendment.
As presently drafted, clause 5(3) makes it clear that a servant or agent of a registered person can be prosecuted for any of the offences listed in subsection (2)(c), (d) and (e). Thus, if he knowingly or recklessly obtains data from a unregistered source, or discloses or transfers data to a person or country not described in the register, he commits an offence.
However, clause 5(2)(b), which says that data must not be held or used other than for a registered purpose, is not covered in this respect. The reason for that is clear so far as the "holding" of data is concerned. As hon. Members will know, "holding" has a precise meaning in terms of the Bill and implies the notion of ultimate control over data. Only a data user can, in terms of the Bill, "hold" data. As a result, only a data user can reasonably be held liable for holding data for an unregistered use of data, and it is clearly possible for the servant or agent of a registered person to use personal data held by that person for an unregistered purpose. That gap in the Bill had to be closed, and we have closed it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

ENFORCEMENT NOTICES

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 43, leave out from 'user' to end of line 2 on page 10 and insert—
'(a) to rectify or erase the data and any other data held by him and containing an expression of opinion which appears to the Registrar to be based on the inaccurate data; or
(b) in the case of such data as are mentioned in subsection (2) of section 22 below, either to take the steps mentioned in paragraph (a) above or to take such steps as are specified in the notice for securing compliance with the requirements specified in that subsection and, if the Registrar thinks fit, for supplementing the data with such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the Registrar may approve.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendments Nos. 19 and 20.

Mr. Waddington: This group of amendments deals with the rectification and erasure of inaccurate personal data. This is one of the more intricate parts of the Bill, but, because the amendments improve the rights of data subjects at no great cost to scrupulous data users, no apology is required for bringing them forward.
As the Bill stands, data which the user has received, either from the subject or from a third party, are treated differently from other data in terms of their accuracy. Many data users receive large amounts of data either from the data subject himself or from third parties. Obviously, users have an interest in ensuring that the data which they hold are accurate, but equally obviously they cannot, realistically, be expected to verify every item of information which they receive from someone else; they must take certain things on trust.
For this reason, we have taken the view — a view which, I think the House will agree, is generally reasonable—that users should not be held responsible for the accuracy of such data, provided that they take


certain precautions designed to safeguard the interests of the subject. Thus, the Bill in clause 22, says that a user will not be obliged to pay compensation to a data subject who suffers damage as a result of inaccurate "received" data, now will a user be liable to a court order for rectification or erasure of such data provided that he has marked the data to indicate their status and, in effect, to indicate that he is not vouching for their accuracy.
In addition, if the subject has disputed the accuracy of the data, the user must, if he does not accept what the subject tells him, include in the data an indication of the dispute if he wishes to benefit from this special protection. In other words, the user is afforded a certain immunity, but, in return, he must ensure a certain degree of protection for the subject by making sure that anyone else looking at the data knows their true status and will treat them with suitable caution.
All of this is entirely sensible so far as clause 22 and compensation for inaccuracy are concerned. But we have, on reflection, come to the view that it may not be so sensible so far as clause 24 and rectification and erasure are concerned. While I remain convinced that, provided he has taken all the appropriate precautions, a user should not be made to pay for the shortcomings of others and be held liable to pay compensation if "received" data prove to be inaccurate, I confess that the arguments against making him liable to a court order for rectification or erasure do not seem convincing.
Generally speaking, if data can be shown to be inaccurate, most data users will be only too happy to correct them. After all, it is in their interest to do so. But there may be cases where a user, for whatever reason, decides to ignore a data subject who tells him that data which he is holding are inaccurate; perhaps he thinks that the data subject has a good reason for wishing to deceive him. In these cases, as the Bill stands, if the user marks the data properly, there is nothing that the data subject can do to have his claim validated and to have the date rectified or erased.
I accept that that is hard to justify, and I do not believe that data users would be seriously inconvenienced or could reasonably object if a court were to be given power to adjudicate in such cases and to order rectification or erasure of any data which were shown to be inaccurate. Indeed, those data users whom we have consulted share this view. They agree that the situation is not likely to arise often, but that, when it does, there is no good reason why a court should not be able to intervene.
The amendments to clause 24 seek to achieve that result. They provide, in effect, that the powers that the court already has in respect of "unmarked" inaccurate data shall apply equally to "marked" data which are shown to be inaccurate. In other words, the court may order rectification or erasure of marked data or the addition of a corrective statement, whichever appears in the circumstances to be the most appropriate response. I hope that the House will feel this to be a valuable increase in the rights of the individual.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: We welcome these clarifying and drafting amendments. As the Minister will readily accept, one of the most repeated complaints in Committee, and so far in today's proceedings, related to the damage and/or distress that can be caused to individuals by inaccurate or misleading information contained in files about them. We have constantly stressed the need to strengthen the ability

of an individual to have access to such information, to be able to challenge it, to obtain compensation for any damage or distress that that information may have occasioned, and to be able to correct, rectify or erase it.
We accept that a data user may be an innocent recipient of information which is misleading, inaccurate or mischievous, and we do not necessarily blame him for that. We accept that many users will accept information in good faith believing it to be accurate. The person. supplying the information may be doing so in the belief that it is accurate. However, we know, too, that on many occasions such belief is unfounded and that the individual. when challenging the information about him, cart demonstrate its inaccuracy.
In those circumstances there is no reason why the data subject, the individual who has been wronged, should not have the opportunity to be able to correct the information or to have it erased. When we debated this issue in Committee, we did not believe it to be a sufficient safeguard that there should be a tag alongside the information stating that the subject had denied its authenticity or accuracy.
The Minister has done what we asked him to do in Committee, and for that we are grateful. We shall support the amendment.

Mr. Norris: I add my thanks to those of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) to my hon. and learned Friend. I welcome the amendment so far as it goes. However, we are still a long way short of what many of us regard as an important part of the provisions of a proper data protection Bill, which is an audit trail that would allow someone about whom information had been wrongly collated and/or disseminated to have that data rectified and erased in respect of the original data user. It is obviously highly desirable that we should have amendment No. 7 to facilitate that process. In addition, the subject of the information should have the right to say, "You have got something wrong about me. You put it on a file and in the registration particulars that are with the registrar you have suggested those to whom you will transmit the information. May I know from you to whom you have transmitted the information? Even better, will you please tell those to whom you have disseminated the information that you got it wrong? Will you convey to them the same corrections that you have been required to make by the application of the clause?"
I do not want to speak at length on this issue because we still have a considerable portion of the Bill to discuss. I welcome the amendment but I wish to underline that it does not go the whole way towards providing a satisfactory audit trail. There will be a serious loophole in our ability to provide proper protection for individuals against data banks for as long as that trail does not exist.
8.15 pm
My hon. and learned Friend said in Committee that part of the problem is the technical inability of computer systems to be able to record to 'whom information is being disseminated. The logging principle is extremely expensive and some have told me that it can double the cost of a computer system if provision is made to log to whom one has disseminated pieces of information. Be that as it may, I cannot comprehend why it is possible to transmit the information with such speed and facility while it is not possible to issue equally speedy and efficiently


produced corrections to data which have been proved to be inadequate and in respect of which the amendment will apply.
I hope that the Minister will have some words of encouragement. I hope, too, that he and his officials will continue to examine all possible avenues open to them and to those within the computer industry to ensure that, if and when possible, we have a proper audit trail for data subjects, which is a vital requirement of a proper data protection Bill.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) has invited me to go down an interesting path but one which is not foreshadowed in the amendment. I shall bear in mind what he has said. We had many debates in Committee on audit trails and logging and I do not think that I would be serving the interests of the House if I were now to re-open them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 16, line 17, leave out from ' 1982)' to end of line 18.

No. 11, in page 16, line 22, leave out from '1982)' to end of line 23.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 22

COMPENSATION FOR INACCURACY

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 18, line 33, leave out from 'compensation' to end of line 34 and insert
'from the data user for that damage and for any distress which the individual has suffered by reason of the inaccuracy.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 17 and 18.

Mr. Waddington: Clauses 22 and 23 create important civil remedies for the data subject; they entitle him to compensation for any damage he may have suffered as a result of inaccuracy in personal data or as the result of the loss or unauthorised disclosure of data. In Committee and in Committee on the Bill's predecessor it was argued that the individual should also be compensated if he suffers distress in these circumstances, and in view of the strength of feeling expressed in Committee I undertook to reconsider the matter.
I have accordingly given careful thought to the question and have consulted the Lord Chancellor. The upshot is that I do not think that it would be right to make distress a totally separate ground for compensation. As the Lord Chancellor explained in another place, and as I reiterated in Committee, the difficulty lies in trying to quantify distress quite apart from any objective measurement of damage, and in the danger of encouraging purely speculative litigation. Let us suppose, for instance, that clause 22 were amended to allow compensation for distress only. Anyone who received a computerised standard letter in which his name was wrongly spelt would be able to claim that the error had caused him untold mental anguish and to institute legal proceedings. Equally anybody receiving a gas bill for £1 million rather than for

£10—even though the bill was mainfestly mistaken and there was no material damage ever in prospect—could resort to litigation and seek compensation for the distress caused to him. No doubt we could trust to the good sense of the courts to prevent the plaintiff from hitting the jackpot. None the less, I cannot see that we would be improving either this Bill or the law generally by allowing such an action to get off the ground in the first place, as we would if we founded a right to compensation upon distress alone. We want to discourage users from holding inaccurate data but we do not want to give birth to a litigant's charter by encouraging speculative actions.
I think that the approach which I am proposing in these amendments will go a long way towards meeting the concern that was expressed in Committee. The amendments have the effect that when a person has suffered damage in the circumstances covered by clauses 22 and 23 he will be entitled, in addition to compensation for the damage, to compensation for any distress which he has suffered. This arrangement, as I understand it, is in line with the general position in civil law in which distress independent of damage is not a ground for compensation but distress may be taken into account where compensation for damage is awarded. Under the clauses as amended, therefore, the plaintiff would still have to show that he had sustained damage. We see this basic condition as being essential if the wholly speculative action to which I referred earlier is to be excluded. None the less, the amendments take full account of the real feeling in Committee that, where damage is sustained, it will often be appropriate to look beyond the damage to the distress suffered as well when fixing the amount of compensation to be awarded.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I welcome the major concession that the Minister has made to the points that were advanced in Committee by me, my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and, in spite of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet). Unfortunately, in Committee the Minister poured scorn on the notion that there could be a legal concept of distress or compensation for distress. The Minister nods his head, but if he were to look at the record he would see clearly the pit he dug for himself on that occasion.
The important point that needs to be made is one that the Minister accepted and that the National Consumer Council made repeatedly in its representations to me, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and, I believe, to Conservative Members — that information about individuals, if inaccurate, could cause a great deal of mental anguish, psychological disturbance and distress. There should therefore, be compensation for distress that has occurred, even though there cannot be shown to be in any material sense damage arising to a person because of inaccurate information held about and passed on about an individual.
Unfortunately, I did not catch everything that the Minister said when speaking to the amendment. I assumed, on my reading of the amendment, that a separate concept of distress would be introduced into the Bill for the purposes of paying compensation—a concept that is already contained in other parts of the Bill, as we pointed out in Committee. The Minister said, I believe, that


distress will not remain in itself a reason for the payment of compensation. That is not my reading of amendment No. 18, which inserts at the end of clause 23
for that damage and for any distress".
The amendment does not say that it must be damage and distress. The amendment suggests damage or distress. I say that not as a lawyer familiar with the interpretation of the law, but as a layman who believes that he understands plain English. As a layman understanding plain English, on reading the Bill I would think that if I had been distressed but not damaged by information held about me and were seeking compensation I would read
for that damage and for any distress.
as meaning that I could obtain compensation for distress. I should like the Minister to clarify that point.

Mr. Hickmet: I did not in Committee oppose the concept of damages for distress. The point I was trying to make was that the Bill provided for damages for distress. That point has been clarified. I welcome that clarity, as does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Gentleman has not only dug a pit for himself but has put the noose around his neck. He was wrong in Committee. The Bill does not provide damages for distress, and that is why the amendment was moved.
We welcome the concession to the arguments that we put forward in Committee but we would like the Minister's further clarification of the points that I have made.

Mr. Norris: I regret to say that, for once, I find myself in certain difficulties. First, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who normally can elucidate precisely the meaning of each amendment tabled by the Government or the Opposition, has on this occasion manifestly failed to read the amendment accurately. Secondly, I regret to say that the remedy that, on a superficial reading, I thought would be available because of the amendment is not available. The argument advanced in Committee — it was wholly right and I actively supported it—was that the Bill covered areas in which the concept of genuine distress, such as should give rise in all equity to compensation, could arise even though there was no actual financial, property or other damage which normally might have involved an order for compensation.
My initial reaction on seeing an amendment that included the words
for that damage and for any distress
was to say, "That is very good. The Government have conceded the point and have introduced the concept of distress. This is a great move forward in the Bill." That is not, however, what is being offered. I read that amendment, as I am required to do, as applying to page 19, line 33, which means that the person who suffers damage because of the inaccuracy of the data shall be entitled to compensation from the data user for that damage. The person will be eligible for some compensation for distress only because of the inaccuracy.
The Minister has used as his argument that it is difficult to define meaningful distress the point that it may be distressing to receive an over-large gas bill, to see a name spelt wrongly, and so on. I understand that it is difficult to define distress. The Minister went on to say that, therefore, damages may be paid for distress only when a person has already proved that he has suffered a financial

or property loss or suffered in another respect for which he would normally gain compensation. It seems to those of us who supported the idea of introducing a remedy for distress that that was precisely the point that we were trying to make. There are occasions when real distress is caused to data subjects above and beyond the trivial examples to which the Minister referred. I hope that the Minister will point out that, sadly, he is not offering any substantial concession. Will the new remedies available to the data subjects differ substantially from the remedies that were available previously? We have left untouched the one area in which we could have made progress — compensation for distress.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) is right on the law and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is, for once, wrong. There is no doubt about the effect of the amendment. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North did not give due weight to the fact that the second line of clause 22 includes the words "who suffers damage". Before the words in the amendment are activated there must be proof of damage. There can be no doubt about what we are offering to the House. I do not pretend that the measure goes as far as the hon. Gentleman might wish or as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East now says that he would wish.
The Lord Chancellor's view is that any action for distress, independent of damage, could lead to speculative litigation in which it would be difficult for the courts to assess compensation on a realistic basis. It is true that race relations and equal opportunities legislation creates civil remedies for hurt feelings, but, as was explained in Committee, there is no real parallel with the civil remedies in this Bill. In those circumstances, it was concluded that it would be reasonable to allow compensation for distress where damage had been suffered. That approach is entirely consistent with the general position in tort. Normally, distress alone cannot found an action in tort. In many cases, once the plaintiff can show that he has sustained damage, he may be allowed compensation for any distress that he has suffered.
8.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) talked about that matter in Committee. He suggested that the decision in Jarvis v. Swan Tours had the effect of establishing that entitlement to compensation for damage included an entitlement to compensation for any distress caused without any specific reference to distress being necessary. That decision is relevant only in a case in which there is a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Jarvis case involved a client and a tour operator. There is unlikely to be such a contractual arrangement in the majority of cases brought under clauses 22 and 23 and, in any case, the Bill, by referring at several points to damage or distress, makes it clear that the two concepts are to be regarded as separate.
I understand that the amendment does not go as far as many hon. Members would like, but half a loaf is better than no bread. This is the amendment before the House. Considerable thought was given to it before it was tabled. I am afraid that, at this late stage of the Bill, it is a case of taking or leaving it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) was right and I was wrong. I, therefore, take


back 50 per cent. of my welcome for the amendment. Nevertheless, it is a welcome amendment. It provides compensation for distress even if the distress has to be coupled with damage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 19, line 21, leave out 'for that damage'.

No. 18, in page 19, line 22, at end insert
'for that damage and for any distress which the individual has suffered by reason of the loss, destruction, disclosure or access.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 24

RECTIFICATION AND ERASURE

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 19, line 31, leave out
`Subject to subsection (2) below'.

No. 20, in page 19, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Subsection (1) above applies whether or not the data accurately record information received or obtained by the data user from the data subject or a third party but where the data accurately record such information, then—

(a) if the requirements mentioned in section 22(2) above have been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under subsection (1) above, make an order requiring the data to be supplemented by such statement of the true facts relating to the matters dealt with by the data as the court may approve; and
(b) if all or any of those requirements have not been complied with, the court may, instead of making an order under that subsection, make such order as it thinks fit for securing compliance with those requirements with or without a further order requiring the data to be supplemented by such a statement as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 28

CRIME AND TAXATION

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 22, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
'(a) The disclosure is for the detection of a serious arrestable offence or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; and'.
As the Bill now stands the disclosure of personal information is allowed for the prevention or detection of crime without there being any indication at all of how serious the crime may be. Personal information of a highly confidential and important nature can be passed to the police, to the Customs and Excise, and to the Inland Revenue for the reasons specified in clause 28 if it be for

"(a) the prevention or detection of crime;
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders; or
(c) the assessment or collection of any tax or duty."

If we are to allow personal information that individuals may regard as highly confidential, which they have volunteered spontaneously to a social worker, priest or other professional person in the belief that that information would be held in confidence and would not be given to any other person, to be disclosed to the organisations that I

have just mentioned for the purposes set out in clause 28, the Opposition submit that it must be in relation to a serious crime.
As it stands, any trivial crime or action that could be construed as falling within the definition of clause 28 would allow information to be passed. I do not wish to go over the debates and the ground that we have already covered in Committee but we were trying—we were then supported by the hon. Members for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) — to ensure that major erosions of individual civil liberties and major invasions of individual privacy could be made only for good and acceptable reasons.
All of us who spoke acknowledged that a fine line had to be drawn, and a balance had to be struck between the police need to obtain information and to be able to detect, apprehend, prosecute and convict offenders, and to retain as much individual liberty and privacy as possible. All of us on the Opposition Benches, as much as Conservative Members, want to see the police successful and effective and to have the ability to catch criminals. We want the police to have the resources and machinery necessary to carry out that function effectively on behalf of all of us and our constituents. I, my right hon. and hon. Friends, as much as anyone in the House, wish to see the rule of law upheld and our streets safe for our constituents. We wish to see criminals detected and imprisoned but there is also a need to ensure that individual privacy is maintained and protected.
We believe that an acceptable balance between the needs of an effective and successful police force, and the demands for individual liberty and privacy was found in the amendment that we debated then and the one that we are now discussing, which says that information can be disclosed if it is
for the detection of a serious arrestable offence or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.
That definition of a serious arrestable offence is contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, shot through with anomalies, flaws and holes though it is. As I said when I was on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill Committee for a short time, it is nevertheless a concept that the Government have accepted, that they clearly have faith in and which, in later amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, they have tightened.
A serious arrestable offence is the concept that triggers many of the police powers contained within the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill-—he powers to stop and search, to set up road checks or to carry out a search of individuals or premises. If it is thought necessary in those circumstances for those powers to be activated only when a serious arrestable offence has been or is alleged to have been committed, it seems to us to be equally reasonable to ask that disclosure of personal information for the reasons specified in clause 28 should be allowed only in respect of a serious arrestable offence.
As always, we are trying to be reasonable and to do the Government's work for them. We are trying to ensure that the Government's policy and thinking are consistent, and to include in this Bill the sensible provisions already contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

Mr. Waddington: We had a protracted debate in Committee on whether crime prevention should be included in the exemption provision in clause 28. I said then, and I say now, that it is artificial to draw a distinction


between those two functions. It would be wrong to exclude crime prevention from the exemption provision. The more important point in the amendment is the matter of a serious arrestable offence.
We have been told that the intention is to adopt a definition used in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I do not want to go through the definition in detail, but it might preclude from the exemptions certain crimes which, in my opinion, should be covered — for example, persistent, non-accidental injuries to children, or petty thieving.
I know that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill establishes that a loss can be defined as serious if
having regard to all the circumstances, it is serious for the person who suffers it.
Are we saying that someone who has a fetish for collecting articles from a washing line should be able to escape detection? In many respects, he is utterly harmless; but such a prowler can engender a great deal of alarm, annoyance and unease in a neighbourhood. Just because we have provided in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill for the exercise of certain powers to be made provisional upon the commission, or likely commission, of a serious criminal offence, there is no reason to carry that concept into a Bill which does a different job in a different context.
I cannot accept that, because a definition appears in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, it ought to appear in this Bill. We are not considering what powers there should be in the hands of the police to obtain property from someone against his will. We are considering the circumstances in which a person should be able, if he so wishes—and only if he so wishes—to give information to the police. We are not compelling people to disclose information. We are merely trying to leave the door open to them to do so if they wish. There is no question of giving the police power to gain access to information which the holder wishes to withhold.
There have been fears that sensitive medical data could be disclosed in connection with trivial offences. I hope that those fears have been allayed by today's debate. For the rest, we must leave it to the individual user to decide whether or not he thinks that he has a public duty to make a disclosure in order to avoid prejudicing the detection of a crime. We should hesitate to make things even more difficult by leaving the data user—not, as in the other context, a police officer — to work out whether an offence is serious or not in accordance with the somewhat complex definition in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The constable on the street has to work out, before he can make use of many of the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, whether or not what is at issue is a serious arrestable offence. The Minister's second point is not substantial.
Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that it would be appropriate to leave to the good sense of the data user the decision whether to pass on information to the police? We accept that the Bill allows the data user to disclose information to the police. It does not compel him, but it helps to disclose information by exempting him, as it were, from the non-disclosure provisions and penalties. Clearly the data user is encouraged to help the police and to provide information. So why is he left to use good sense when, in the guidance provided by the DHSS for its own officers, the question is not left to the good sense of the

officers, but clear and specific guidelines are given—they were quoted in Committee — about the circumstances in which information may be disclosed to the police? The DHSS says that information shall be disclosed only where a serious arrestable offence has been, or is thought to have been, committed, and to some extent it defines a serious offence.
If that is appropriate in those circumstances, clearly it would be reasonable and appropriate in these circumstances not to leave the question to the good sense of the data user—in which case a multiplicity of different practices would result—but to provide guidelines in the legislation.

Mr. Waddington: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any data user or body of data users from laying down their own rules and deciding what practice they should follow. That is no argument for laying down in the utmost detail the precise circumstances in which a person should or should not disclose information to the police.
The hon. Gentleman's example of the police officer is unhelpful. If it is difficult for the police officer to decide whether the offence that he is investigating is a serious arrestable offence, surely it is impossible to expect a civilian with no experience of such matters to make that distinction? We are talking about an exemption which applies not only to the activities of police officers, but to every citizen. It is wholly unrealistic to say that the individual citizen must ask himself, "I wonder whether this is a serious arrestable offence within the meaning of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill? By gosh, if I reveal this information to the police and it turns out not to be a serious arrestable offence under that Bill, I shall be committing an offence under the Data Protection Bill. It would be midsummer madness to take that road.

Mr. Hickmet: Is my hon. and learned Friend's objection to the amendment based on the inclusion of the word "serious"? If the word "serious" did not appear in the amendment, would his objection disappear? the concept of an arrestable offence is well known.

Mr. Waddington: These are deep waters. I am not asked to debate what might or might not be acceptable. I am asked to address my mind to the present amendment, which is clearly not acceptable.
We went to considerable trouble to decide what exemptions should be set out in the Bill in order to ensure that society was protected against wrongdoers and that the prevention and detection of crime were not impeded. Earlier, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that he did not recognise that clause 28 limited the powers of the police far more than was necessary in order to comply with the European convention. It is sometimes forgotten that, in the interests of the individual, the powers are limited beyond that point.
We have struck a reasonable balance. We have more than conformed to the requirements of the convention, but we have been careful to see that we do not impede the legitimate needs of society to protect itself.

Mr. Ashdown: The Minister and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) rightly agree that there is a need to ensure that the police can operate efficiently. However, there is a commensurate need to protect the


individual from the power of the state. A balance needs to be struck at an appropriate level. Many hon. Members regard the level in the Bill as inappropriate.

Mr. Waddington: It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he regards the balance as inappropriate. We think that it is appropriate. We have taken great pains to try to arrive at a proper balance between the interests of the data user and the subject and between the interests of society and the data subject. It is difficult to achieve precisely the right balance, but we feel that we have done so, and we are sure that the amendment would upset that balance in an absurd and destructive way.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 22, line 30, at end insert—
'(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to a disclosure made by or on behalf of a data user who—

(a) allows the person to whom the disclosure is made direct access to all or some of the personal data held by him; or
(b) regularly or habitually makes such disclosures; or
(c) at the time of applying for registration under Part II of this Act intended to make such disclosures but failed to include a sufficient indication to that effect in the information furnished to the Registrar in connection with his application for registration; or
(d) at any time after becoming a registered data user formed such an intention but failed within a reasonable time to apply to the Registrar for an appropriate alteration of the particulars included in the entry relating to him, or to make an appropriate fresh application for registration.'.—[Mr. Ashdown.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 53, Noes 174.

Division No. 345]
[8.48 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Kennedy, Charles


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Kirkwood, Archibald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Loyden, Edward


Bidwell, Sydney
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
McWilliam, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Madden, Max


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Clay, Robert
Nellist, David


Dalyell, Tam
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Eastham, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ewing, Harry
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Fatchett, Derek
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


George, Bruce
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Godman, Dr Norman
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Gould, Bryan



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Paddy Ashdown and


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Mr. James Wallace.


Howells, Geraint





NOES


Amess, David
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)





Cash, William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Conway, Derek
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cope, John
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Dicks, Terry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dorrell, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus


Durant, Tony
Moore, John


Eggar, Tim
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fallon, Michael
Mudd, David


Favell, Anthony
Murphy, Christopher


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Nelson, Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Newton, Tony


Forth, Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Norris, Steven


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Onslow, Cranley


Freeman, Roger
Osborn, Sir John


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gow, Ian
Parris, Matthew


Gower, Sir Raymond
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Greenway, Harry
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Ground, Patrick
Powell, William (Corby)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Powley, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hanley, Jeremy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Harris, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Harvey, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Haselhurst, Alan
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Hawksley, Warren
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayes, J.
Rowe, Andrew


Hayhoe, Barney
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hayward, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Heddle, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Henderson, Barry
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hickmet, Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hind, Kenneth
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hirst, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Holt, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Hooson, Tom
Sims, Roger


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Speller, Tony


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Spencer, Derek


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Key, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Stern, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knox, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Terlezki, Stefan


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thornton, Malcolm


Lester, Jim
Thurnham, Peter


Lightbown, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lilley, Peter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Luce, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Waddington, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Macfarlane, Neil
Walden, George


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Maclean, David John
Waller, Gary


McQuarrie, Albert
Ward, John


Major, John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Malone, Gerald
Watts, John


Marlow, Antony
Whitfield, John


Mather, Carol
Whitney, Raymond


Maude, Hon Francis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wolfson, Mark






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Woodcock, Michael
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and



Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 32

PAYROLLS AND ACCOUNTS

9 pm

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 23, line 39, leave out from 'user' to end of line 6 on page 24 and insert—
'only for one or more of the following purposes—

(a) calculating amounts payable by way of remuneration or pensions in respect of service in any employment or office or making payments of, or of sums deducted from, such remuneration or pensions; or
(b) keeping accounts relating to any business or other activity carried on by the data user or keeping records of purchases, sales or other transactions for the purpose of ensuring that the requisite payments are made by or to him in respect of those transactions or for the purpose of making financial or management forecasts to assist him in the conduct of any such business or activity,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House we will discuss with this Government amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31.

Mr. Waddington: These amendments do not raise any major issue. They are none the less important if clause 32 is to be effective in exempting small-scale data users from the scope of the Bill, provided the data which they hold are used only for the relatively harmless purposes specified. The amendments are designed to ensure that the conditions attached to the exemption are not unnecessarily restrictive but that at the same time they do not go too far in allowing data which should rightly be covered by the Bill to slip through the net. I hope the House will accept the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 24, line 11, leave out 'that for which they are held or' and insert
'the purpose or purposes for which they are held and are not'.
No. 30, in page 24, line 16, leave out 'for the purpose' and insert
'only for one or more of the purposes'.
No. 31, in page 24, line 33, leave out 'either' and insert `any'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 35

GENERAL DUTIES OF REGISTRAR

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 27, line 34, at end insert—
'(2) The Registrar may consider any complaint that any of the data protection principles or any provision of this Act has been or is being contravened and shall do so if the complaint appears to him to raise a matter of substance and to have been made without undue delay by a person directly affected; and where the Registrar considers any such complaint he shall notify the complainant of the result of his consideration and of any action which he proposes to take.'.
This amendment is a consequence of an undertaking which was given in Committee to consider sympathetically the introduction of a statutory provision on complaints. At previous stages of the Bill we had reservations about placing the registrar under a duty in this

respect. We feared that he might find himself with no choice but to spend valuable time and resources pursuing complaints of little substance, when he would be serving both data subjects and data users much better by concentrating on other matters
Of course we have always seen it as essential that the registrar should spend a good deal of his time investigating complaints. The whole Bill is structured to enable him to do that because complaints will be his major source of information about breaches of the data protection principles. We worried about obliging him to pursue complaints, feeling that we might be forcing him to tie up his resources in what might sometimes prove to be unproductive work, but the Committee clearly felt that there should be some reference in the Bill to the registrar's function of considering complaints. I think that we have reached a reasonable formulation, which clearly points to the importance of him looking into complaints made by individual data subjects.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Minister. I want to express our appreciation. This is a matter of some importance, which we debated in Committee. It seemed to us important that the registrar should act when he is satisfied that a complaint is a matter of substance. We regard this as a considerable improvement in the Bill. On behalf of the Opposition I express appreciation that the Minister has met us on this matter.

Mr. Maclennan: I too am extremely grateful to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. It is most satisfactory that at this stage, after the Bill has been debated, I think, four times, these amendments are coming forward from the Government, fluttering down like leaves in the autumn. We are only too delighted to have played some part in concentrating the Government's mind and bringing about this satisfactory change of heart.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 27, line 40, at end insert—
'(3) It shall be the duty of the Registrar, where he considers it appropriate to do so, to encourage trade associations or other bodies representing data users to prepare, and to disseminate to their members, codes of practice for guidance in complying with the data protection principles.'.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Clause 41

COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 32, line 3, leave out from 'above' to end of line 6.
This is a happy note on which to end our debates on Report. Here again, we are extending the rights of the data subject with regard to old data. I am sure that the amendment will be welcomed on both sides of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 32, line 11, leave out 'as aforesaid' and insert
'by the data user in question since before the end of that period.'.

No. 37, in page 32, line 16, leave out from 'above' to end of line 18.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Schedule 3

APPEAL PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 38, line 35, leave out from second 'of' to end of line 43 and insert—

'(a) the chairman or a deputy chairman (who shall preside); and
(b) an equal number of the members appointed respectively in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 3(5) of this Act.'.

No. 39, in page 39, leave out lines 4 to 11.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: We recognise that both in Committee and on Report the Government made useful and significant amendments to meet major concerns expressed by Members in all parts of the House, including reservations expressed by Conservative Members. We welcome that and the fact that the Committee stage was conducted with a good deal of co-operation and understanding. Nevertheless, although amendments have been made to deal with a number of worries, one central issue remains which will make it impossible for the alliance to support Third Reading. The House will be pleased to know that as I spoke at some length on this earlier today I shall not need to repeat the details of the argument about the threat to civil liberty contained in clause 28, so no time has been wasted.
The central basis for our opposition to the Bill is the potential that it has to damage the individual in relation to the capacity of the state to gather information about the individual and to share it among the organs of the state. As I said earlier, the computers and computer organisations serving the state are growing in a manner that is not generally recognised in the House and may even not be clearly understood by those proposing it.

Mr. Norris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman complained earlier that I made a long speech. I recognise that it was indeed a long speech, but it was made far longer than it need have been by all the interventions. I do not intend to make a long speech on this occasion, but I will give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
The central case for our opposition to the Bill lies in clause 28(3). That is the single, central point of opposition, but it is a massive one. It allows the passing of private, personal information which can now be gathered and stored more effectively and retrieved more quickly from points right across all the Departments of state. The Bill does absolutely nothing to protect the rights of the individual in that regard.
The Government have made the case time and again we need a Bill to protect data that is automatically held, not data that is stored manually. New protections are required. We agree with the Government's aim of protecting the individual because of the automated nature of currently held data. Yet the safeguards that the Government have built into the Bill do not differ from those covering the exchange of manually recorded information between the organs of the State.
The guidelines laid down by the Home Office to allow the police to interrogate, based on private information, are

inadequate. However, not much damage can be done, because such information is manual; there is a fundamental difference between that and the damage that can be done through the exchange of information between the organs of the state. Therefore, we need a new set of safeguards, which are not contained in the Bill or in the Home Office circulars.

Mr. Denis Howell: I regard this as an astonishing speech. On Second Reading the Liberal party and the SDP voted for the Bill. We are now asked to accept, after all the improvements that the Government have made—I have acknowledged them—that the Bill is worse than before. I shall quote the hon. Gentleman's conclusion to his speech on behalf of the alliance. He said:
I shall not detain the House with other matters of great importance which are more appropriately dealt with at length in Committee. A number of them were touched on … Notwithstanding our hope that various new clauses and amendments will be agreed to in Committee, we welcome the Bill and will do all that we can to ensure that, deprived of its present blemishes, it passes into law as soon as possible."—[Official Report, 30 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 64.]
In the light of that attitude, the hon. Gentleman's speech is lamentable.

Mr. Ashdown: I hear the right hon. Gentleman, but I must remind him that the key words in that speech were "deprived of its present blemishes". I shall read to the hon. Gentleman in return the words of a Labour Front Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He said:
We have been told how keen the Government are to protect the privacy of the individual, and individual privacy is certainly at risk. All of us now are collections of digits on so many computers that it is beyond the scope of the citizen to keep track of them".
How has the Bill altered that statement? The right hon. Gentleman summed up his opposition on Second Reading. He said:
Where the Bill purports to be benevolent, it is often inadequate".
In our judgment, it remains inadequate.
Where it claims to be innocuous, it is often dangerous.
Because of clause 28, it remains dangerous.
Yet what an opportunity the Government had. Britain lags behind other countries in being without any real freedom of information legislation. Britain is woefully inadequate in its legislation to protect privacy."—[Official Report, 30 January 1984; Vol. 53, c. 42–6.]
What has changed in the Bill? Merely some minor details on the fringes. None of the fears of the Labour Front Bench spokesmen on Second Reading have been assuaged. Our central argument against the Bill is our opposition to clause 28. Labour spokesmen have spoken with concern about the clause. The Labour party has given away its opposition to the Bill and to other legislation on major issues for the sake of some puny fringe amendments.
The central issue of the Bill is in clause 28(3). There is no doubt that the present development of computers held by the State represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power between the individual and the State. Such computers are capable of linking together to form what I term a "Big Brother" organisation. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, although the computers form that sort of framework. We strike against that.

Mr. Norris: rose——

Mr. Ashdown: I see that the hon. Member for Oxford, East wishes to intervene. I am about to close my remarks.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he will take note of the fact that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) voted in favour of amendments to clause 28 which, unhappily, were not carried in Committee. Yet does he not accept, as we do—it is patently obvious to anyone who has bothered to read the Bill—that we are significantly better off on Third Reading, although not as well off as we would like in an ideal world? Is not that a simple and logical justification for supporting the Bill on Third Reading, especially in view of the improvements made in Committee? Is it not blatant hypocrisy to oppose the Bill on Third Reading?

Mr. Ashdown: I recognise fully that the hon. Gentleman made such interventions in Committee and, extremely effectively, in today's debate.
The hon. Gentleman will argue that nevertheless this Bill is better than no Bill at all. He must accept that I disagree profoundly with him. Perhaps clause 28(3), which the hon. Gentleman voted against, is a matter of fringe importance to him, but, in the view of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is of fundamental principle. Unless we can address that problem, damage could be done in the future because of the inadequate system of safeguards provided by the Bill. That matter concerns us and is a sufficient reason for voting against Third Reading.
The hon. Gentleman argues, perhaps with justification, that the Bill has improved. We further depart from his view on that point. We believe that by codifying the current system and setting up a wholly inadequate system, that fact itself will make it more difficult to make the changes that I suspect the hon. Gentleman would wish, which I too would wish. On that ground, we believe, on this fundamental issue of principle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where were the Liberal amendments?"] Labour Members have seen our amendments. We tabled amendments and voted on them. We tabled our amendments in minimalist terms. They were not what we wanted, and did not go as far as we wished, but at least they were some sort of safeguard, and moving in the right direction. Those amendments were rejected. Had they been accepted by the Government, we would have reconsidered our position.
The central issue is this. In Britain there is now the potential for the interlinking of a massive system of computers, which may act as a major threat to the individual and alter the balance between the individual and the state. The Bill not only does nothing towards addressing that problem, but in codifying the current practices, which are hopelessly inadequate for automatic processed data, it will make matters not better, but worse. On that ground, my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself will oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Mr. Denis Howell: We have just listened to double talk in a speech of synthetic indignation such as has rarely been the lot of hon. Members to have to listen to. It came from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who told us that he would divide the House against the Bill on Third Reading because it is a matter of fundamental principle. He said that the fundamental principle was expressed by his party in minimalist terms, whatever that means. I do not know how one can express fundamental opposition to

a Bill in minimalist terms. It is beyond my comprehension, unless the minimalist terms are intended to refer to the number of people that the alliance get into the Division Lobby. [Interruption.] I should like to tell the assembled ranks of Liberals that for long periods today there has not been a single soul on their Benches.
If there is a fundamental objection to the Bill, it should have been expressed on Second Reading. Even the newest hon. Members know that on Second Reading the decision on principle is taken. Far from doing that, their spokesman welcomed the Bill. If there are fundamental objections to the Bill, they should have been expressed by fundamental amendments that we could have debated and voted on today, but they did not appear on the amendment paper.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman spent 40 minutes earlier this evening talking trash, and I do not see why he should have 40 seconds in the middle of my intelligent contribution. If there are fundamental objections to the Bill, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who attended the Committee proceedings assiduously, should have voted against clause stand part on almost every occasion in Committee, but, of course, he never did so.
Although manual files were not included and there are other deficiencies in the Bill the Government have gone a long way to meeting many of the points put in Committee and it would be reprehensible not to acknowledge the improvements made in the Bill. What the hon. Member for Yeovil is trying to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "He voted for the Bill on Second Reading."] That had not escaped my attention. The Leader of the Liberal party also voted for it.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell: I have no intention of giving way. The hon. Gentleman berated us for 40 minutes and has already over-indulged himself. What he is trying to do, on behalf of his colleagues, is to write into the folklore of Britain the belief that our people will not be adequately protected as a result of our procedures. He is trying to create a myth that Liberal and SDP Members are the only ones who stand up for the rights and privileges of our people. That is absolute bosh and baloney, and I am glad to have the opportunity of saying so.

Mr. Waddington: We had a pleasant, knowledgeable and profitable Committee stage and at no time during our deliberations in Committee did we hear drivel of the sort that we heard tonight from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). It was unsavoury drivel for the reason mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). Although it was obvious that until now the alliance was perfectly content with the Bill, the great parade by the hon. Member for Yeovil a few moments ago was designed to catch the headlines — [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] Hon. Members do not know that we had to put up with 45 minutes of nonsense from the hon. Gentleman earlier this evening. It was a great charade to try to pretend that the Liberal party had never supported the Bill, had opposed it throughout and is now the only guardian of individual liberty in the country. The truth is


that until the hon. Gentleman rose and uttered that drivel, every action of the alliance was in support of the Bill, and we saw that in Committee from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
The hon. Member for Yeovil had the sheer effrontery to say that the Bill has the capacity to cause considerable damage to the individual——

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waddington: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman must hear a few home truths now. He said that the Bill has the capacity to cause considerable damage to the individual, but he knows perfectly well that the Bill in no way detracts from the present rights of the individual, nor does it allow anyone to disclose information that he cannot disclose at present. He said that the Bill has the capacity to do considerable damage to the individual, yet he knows full well that in no way does the Bill take away from any individual the right to access to information that he has at present. The worst that can be said of the Bill is that it does not go far enough. One can accept that sort of sensible argument. One cannot accept the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Yeovil.
The hon. Member has the impudence to harp on the effect of clause 28(2). It seems to have escaped his notice that, even when one comes to the case for data protection, or for the prevention of crime, those data are under the general supervision of the registrar. He has omitted entirely to mention that at any stage, yet he pretends that the Bill does nothing to help the individual even in that area where he says that the protection is indequate. If he had bothered to study the Bill, he would have found that the Bill provides new safeguards for the individual.
I will not dwell on the matter any longer. This has been a painful incident, because it is painful to see a Member of the House making a fool of himself, as the hon. Member for Yeovil has.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes, 174, Noes, 10.

Division No. 346]
[9.26 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buck, Sir Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nick
Gow, Ian


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Greenway, Harry


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cockeram, Eric
Ground, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cope, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Dalyell, Tam
Hanley, Jeremy


Dicks, Terry
Harris, David


Durant, Tony
Harvey, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Fallon, Michael
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Favell, Anthony
Hayes, J.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hayhoe, Barney





Hayward, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Heddle, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Henderson, Barry
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hickmet, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Hind, Kenneth
Powley, John


Hirst, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rathbone, Tim


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Holt, Richard
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Home Robertson, John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rowe, Andrew


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ryder, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Speller, Tony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spencer, Derek


Lester, Jim
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Luce, Richard
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Macfarlane, Neil
Terlezki, Stefan


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maclean, David John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


McQuarrie, Albert
Thornton, Malcolm


Malone, Gerald
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Antony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Maude, Hon Francis
Viggers, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waddington, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Walden, George


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Waller, Gary


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Ward, John


Montgomery, Fergus
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Moore, John
Watts, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Whitfield, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Whitney, Raymond


Mudd, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Newton, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Nicholls, Patrick
Woodcock, Michael


Norris, Steven
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Onslow, Cranley



Osborn, Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Page, John (Harrow W)
Mr. Ian Lang and


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. John Major.




NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Bruce, Malcolm
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Alan Beith and


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Orders of the Day — Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SAFETY

`The Secretary of State shall set up an advisory committee to examine and report on the safety of fishermen in vessels operating in the areas specified in this Act.'.—[Dr. Godman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The three main issues with which the Bill is concerned are, first, the repeal of restrictions on trawling and sailing inside the three-mile limit, secondly, the need to improve the protection afforded to static gear fishermen and, thirdly, the need to increase the protection of nursery grounds and juvenile fish. I believe that there should be a fourth objective — the safety of the fishermen operating in those waters.
The first three objectives are laudable, and will be supported by all those concerned with the well-being of the crews of our fishing vessels and the Scottish fishing industry as a whole. It is my hope that new clause 2, if accepted, will help to focus attention on the safety needs of both crews and vessels operating in those areas specified in the Bill.
I remind the House that article 9 of the recent Council regulation concerning the restructuring and modernisation of EEC fishing fleets emphasises the need for greater safety measures for fishermen. Another article in that regulation spells out the need to structure decisions around integrated safety principles.
I anticipate that the Secretary of State would ensure that the composition of the proposed advisory committee would be such that the majority of its members would be representatives of fishermen's associations concerned with both static and mobile gear vessels. In addition, the Secretary of State could invite nominations for the remaining positions from such bodies as he considered appropriate. Currently, there is no Scottish organisation specifically concerned with fishing vessel safety—that is dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry on a United Kingdom-wide basis.
There is a fishing industry safety group. It meets twice a year and its 35 members include departmental officials, representatives of various fishermen's organisations, vessel builders and trade unions. The unions now play only a small part, since the demise of the distant water sector of the fleet, though the Transport and General Workers' Union still has a representative on the committee.
Given the existence of that safety group, some may question the need for what might be termed a Scottish inshore fishing safety group. In my view, the safety of fishermen should be uppermost in our minds when we legislate for the catching sector of the industry. While I have considerable respect for its members, the fishing industry safety group is too large and unwieldly to deal with specific areas of fishing vessels safety, the safety of fishermen, problems relating to certain methods of fishing and various other activities.
A Scottish committee comprised, in the main, of experienced fishermen could examine more realistically

the problems faced by fishermen as they go about their work. No one can deny that those employed in the catching sector face many dangers in the alien environment in which they work.
In a written reply on 22 March last I was told by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport that while there were no separate Scottish figures for the deaths of fishermen, for the period 1979 to 1982, 60 Scottish registered vessels of 12m and above were lost. Given that Scotland has 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom fleet and that during that period a total of 118 vessels were lost, Scottish losses were marginally below those for the United Kingdom as a whole. Nevertheless, they were depressingly high.
The Scotsman of 9 February published a list of 10 Scottish vessels that had been lost. The article highlighted the problems faced by Scottish fishermen. The vessels dealt with were lost in the period September 1977 to June 1983. Among those listed was the Arcadia of Inverness, in which five men were lost. In all, 62 men were lost on the 10 vessels listed. The statistics point to an increase in the number of vessels lost.
Not all the vessels were lost in the waters specified in the Bill, but some of them were, and not a month goes by when we do not hear of a vessel being in danger around our shores. The Scotsman article began:
In spite of all the official efforts to make the fishing industry less dangerous, the safety battle is not being won.
9.45 pm
A medical-geographer at Dundee university, Mark Riley, is of the opinion that risks to fishing vessels have increased in recent years. In an article that was published in the Journal of Navigation, he wrote about his research findings as follows:
At a time when the fishing industry is transfixed by the rapidity of economic decline and its very existence frequently appears threatened, it is not surprising that preoccupation with matters financial has attenuated and in some respects has eclipsed the relevance and implications of the alarming trend in vessel losses.
He continued:
In the light of present knowledge, effective remedial action ought to be implemented forthwith, since the current risks of loss or casualty are about twice a high overall as those with which Holland-Martin and his committee colleagues were concerned and over which they expressed surprise and deep concern.
That is a reference to the Committee of Inquiry which considered trawler safety, which was set up in 1969 following the loss of three Hull trawlers within a few days.
I am given to understand that officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are somewhat sceptical about the statistical methodology employed by Mr. Riley in his study. I, too, have my reservations about his research methodology, but, putting those reservations to one side, his research findings should be of concern to all.
Hitherto, safety measures in the sea fishing sector have concentrated overwhelmingly on the safety of the vessel and, when this was endangered, on the survival of the crew. Despite Mr. Riley's serious and justifiable reservations, some progress has been made in the past 20 years, although a great deal still needs to be done. However, the concentration on the fundamental aspects of the safety of vessels and crews has tended to obscure the fact that a fishing vessel is at one and the same time a work place where many accidents occur which could be avoided if appropriate preventive measures were adopted by skippers and crews.
An important part could be played by an advisory committee of the sort that is suggested in the clause. Such a committee could advise on the application of the principle of integrated safety and on all forms of decision making on fishing activities. Much more attention could be paid by way of such a committee's deliberations to safety measures in all decisions on the design and construction of vessels, the design and operation of equipment and the organisation of work and working methods. Similarly, emphasis could be placed on the ease and speed of use of design-manufactured tools and the health of crews which handle them.
Fishermen who are active in the areas covered by this proposed legislation would benefit from the work of a committee concerned with their safety. I believe that much more needs to be done, but I am well aware that some people disagree with that view. For example, one representative of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation recently said:
Over the years, we have been saddened and perplexed on the occasions when vessels are lost without apparent explanation. In the wake of Holland-Martin, everyone became very safety-conscious and there have been a tremendous number of strides forward with the Scottish fleet being more modern than the rest of the UK.
He added:
Frankly, I do not think that there is any more that we can do.
I hope that that cri de coeur is not echoed tonight. I believe that Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House have genuine and sincere concern for fishermen and their well-being. The clause goes some way to acknowledge and outline the magnitude of the problems surrounding the safety of fishermen.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I oppose the motion because it is unnecessary. I should like to correct the point made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the safety of fishermen, not the Department of Trade and Industry.
An examination of the figures since 1973 shows that, on average, only three vessels a year have been lost. In the past year, there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of fishing vessels and people lost at sea, many of them because of accidents.
The hon. Gentleman overstated the need for the new clause. Fishermen put great store on their safety. The excellent HM Coastguard service is available to fishermen. We do not have the same problems as occurred in previous years. Practically all fishing vessels now carry radar systems allowing them to be contacted and to have contact with the shore. It is not necessary to have an additional committee on safety. Vessels are regularly inspected under the powers of the Secretary of State for Transport. Safety matters are watched by fishermen's organisations, the safety committee, which comprises various organisations, the Sea Fish Industry Authority and other bodies. I believe that there are sufficient safety powers in respect of the vessels that go to sea.
In the light of what has happened in the past, fishermen are safety conscious. The type of vessels and the superior equipment used should negate the need for any additional safety committee. There are adequate provisions in the Bill to ensure that the safety of fishermen is secured whenever they are at sea.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I support the new clause. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) under-rated the horrific figures of deaths at sea in recent years. Fishing has been reported in the press as a more dangerous occupation than some occupations that are better known as dangerous. This measure is called for because of the recent withdrawal of the training schemes. Training applies not only on vessels but when dealing with accidents on board, fires at sea, and so on. Although this matter has been transferred in Scotland to another authority, fishermen feel that the useful work that was being done at a low cost — about £40,000 a year—should have been maintained because over a period it would have led to greater safety in the fleet. In the absence of the training courses, the measure is well called for. The new clause could be a useful addition to the Bill.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I support the new clause, as it is a valuable measure. I am surprised at the arguments used by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie). I understand what he said about the importance that fishermen attach to safety and their interest in maintaining it, but the hon. Gentleman did not put forward any substantive arguments against establishing an advisory committee. Most concerned fishermen consider many facets of safety at sea—the rapidly changing design of fishing vessels, the need for expert advice and the need to consider international experience, which fishermen might not readily have at their disposal.
I should have thought that the statutory establishment of an advisory committee on safety, with the remit to consider many matters, including safety on board and the adequacy of training practices, would be welcome to the fishing industry and of considerable benefit.
I understand that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan may not wish to establish a fifth wheel on a coach but no such comprehensively active body exists, and although inspectors and the coastguards exist, a body of men and women is needed to pool information and advise——

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Another quango.

Mr. Maclennan: As the hon. Gentleman said, another quango which would be interested in the safety of the fishermen upon whom the public depend for an important part of their food, is not a quango which anyone would seriously argue has no merit. The hon. Gentleman should not fling around such words as if they were pejorative. The body would have a function which would justify its existence and which I think the Secretary of State, in the discharge of his statutory responsibilities, would find helpful.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has raised the subject of fishermen's safety. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), that well-known fishing constituency, suggest that there was something bad about quangos whose responsibility would be unable to protect fishermen's safety at sea.
Opposition Members are right to be interested in this matter because one of the educational institutions which has done a great deal of research, education and training to protect the safety of fishermen at sea is the Leith


nautical college. One of the many reorganisations that the Government are carrying out in education to save money has been the reorganisation of navigational training in Scotland. Leith nautical college has suffered from the cuts. It has given great service to fishermen from my part of the world and many others.
When I first read new clause 2 I was not sure that it was entirely appropriate, because the most dangerous waters that British and Scottish fishermen fish are probably not the inshore fishing areas. I then remembered an incident which happened not far from my constituency. The skipper of a fishing vessel was having a good day's fishing. He was fishing for sprats and they were plentiful in those waters on that day. One must remember that there are no Plimsoll lines on fishing vessels so there is no law to say how far one can load a fishing vessel. He fished and fished until the boat sunk. That might sound like a biblical parable, but it happened. When there are people who are prepared to go to such excesses, perhaps there is a need for extra safety measures. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously.

Mr. Soames: rose——

Mr. Home Robertson: I am not giving way. I have finished my speech.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): This has been a useful debate, if only to highlight the interest that both sides of the House have in the safety of fishermen. I am not sure that setting up a committee is the best way to do something concrete to help fishermen's safety. The little speech made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) illustrated the fact that, unless someone from the committee of inquiry sails in every fishing boat, there is not much to be done about a fisherman who overloads his boat with fish. That is almost the opposite of what happened to St. Peter. He fished all night and caught nothing.
Fishing is a hazardous occupation, but knowing that does not absolve us from trying to make it less hazardous. However, the Bill is concerned with the regulation of fishing in a limited area—in waters close to our shores. It is not a suitable vehicle for dealing with issues of safety.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Lang.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. MacKay: Any inquiry set up as a result of the new clause would be limited in its scope, relating only to those waters within the six-mile limit, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) recognised. Recent research by Dundee university into the safety of the United Kingdom fishing industry has cast doubts on the safety record of the industry. The preliminary conclusion of that report is that fishing has become more hazardous. However, I understand that that conclusion has been challenged vehemently by the Scottish fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) made that point.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has suggested that the research shows a need for another general inquiry into the subject. The Secretary of

State for Transport, who is responsible for the safety of all seafarers, including fishermen, is in the course of replying to the proposal made to him. That being so, and because the research is highly technical — testing inferences statistically is seldom simple — not much would be gained by setting up a committee such as is envisaged in the new clause.
I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Transport to some of the points made today about safety at sea and ask him to take them into consideration. However, I do not believe that, even though Opposition Members are acting on the best of motives, they have proved that such a committee would save the life of one fisherman or prevent one vessel from foundering.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan has said, the safety of fishermen is very largely in their own hands. They must be careful in everything they do—in how they navigate and how they fish. They do not have to be told that the sea is a cruel mistress and that one mistake can be lethal. I believe that the new clause is unnecessary and would be out of place in the Bill.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: As the Minister says, the scope of the Bill is limited. It was more limited before this debate, and the presence of many hon. Members in the Chamber is evidence of the extension of the scope of the Bill and the willingness of the Government to extend its scope to cover species of fish hitherto not within its compass.
However, it would be remiss of the House, when debating fishing in any context, not to take account of safety. I was disappointed in the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), although I know that he is mindful of the difficulties and dangers under which many of his constituents earn their living. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was very fair when he summed up the evidence. He questioned some of the methodology applied by the Dundee study of safety. However, when we deal with an industry as dangerous as fishing, it is not inappropriate for the House to consider the question of safety. The limited scope of the inshore fishing industry in Scotland does not preclude the possibility of specialist consideration. It does not matter when one is six miles from the Scottish shore or 60 miles; if the water is deep enough, one can drown. One's distance from the shore is academic.
We know that the Government are always loth to burden themselves with yet another source of advice when they think they are well served by existing committees. The Opposition recognise the value of the committees that advise the Government, but the industry involves many Scots who could well do with being reminded of the importance of safety. I am not in any way denigrating the care and attention of skippers and their crews, but it is important that the importance of safety be hammered home again and again. We are aware that another committee might not save too many lives but the evidence of the Health and Safety Executive on land is that the more people are reminded of the need for safety, the safer employment becomes.
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will not push the new clause to a Division—I leave that to him.

Mr. McQuarrie: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the joint committee of representatives of the fishing


industry and operators of oil rigs in the North sea, which meets regularly and discusses safety at sea, is adequate and that a new one is not necessary?

Mr. O'Neill: There are Scottish fishermen other than those who operate from the east coast. Such fishermen might not be involved in that committee. Fishing is a dangerous occupation and accidents are possible, even with the highest safety standards. It does no harm constantly to remind crews and skippers of the dangers. This brief debate will be read closely by the industry because it has been watching the Bill's progress. We felt it appropriate to raise the issue of safety once again. We realise that there is little enthusiasm among Conservative Members for it now and are disapponted by that. This is a modest proposal that is concerned with only a limited area of activity in the fishing industry. It could be a testing ground for specialised advisory committees on safety throughout the United Kingdom's waters. We do not envisage a massive bureaucracy or quango because the people who would be called upon to participate in such a committee give their time freely with the same commitment that they give to their other worthwhile activities in regard to the fishing industry.
We regret that the Minister has not seen fit to set up the advisory committee. We have put down markers and are sure that, in other debates that we shall have on the fishing industry, safety will arise. We shall remind the Minister, although not in terms of, "We told you so", that this evening he threw aside an opportunity.

Dr. Godman: I readily accept that this legislation is not perhaps the best vehicle for a continuing examination of fishing vessel safety. However, in reply to some of the ill-considered remarks delivered from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who I suspect is here to discuss salmon and who shows little or no concern for the safety of fishermen, may I say that this issue is very important.
I should like to quote from the answer I had from the Minister of State, Department of Transport. These are his words, not mine, and they may go some way to answering the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie):
I greatly regret that during the four year period 1979 to 1982, 60 vessels of 12 m in length and over registered in Scottish ports were lost." —[Official Report, 22 March, 1984; Vol. 56, c. 551.]
It is a major problem. I reject totally what the Minister said about having to leave this to the skippers and crews involved. I have personal experience of this industry, coming from a fishing family. I lost an uncle when a freak wave hit the wheelhouse of his trawler some years ago. Therefore, I have experience of the need for greater safety measures.
Having said that, in no way would I denigrate the members of fishermen's associations either in Scotland or south of the border. As with all maritime industries there is a need for continuing surveillance of safety measures from the very design of the vessel to the working methods. I hoped to draw attention to that by raising those issues.
With that in mind and given the comments made by the Minister that he would bring some of my remarks to the attention of his colleague, the Minister at the Department of Transport, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL

`Concurrent with the publication of an order under section 1, the Secretary of State shall publish, in such form as he considers appropriate, any scientific and technical material considered by him prior to making the said order: [Mr. Wallace.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
One of the intentions of the Bill is that the Secretary of State should lay before the House orders designating areas in which certain fishing activities will be restricted. It is no secret that one kind of restricted area will be nursery grounds for breeding fish. It is accepted that in the interests of conservation certain grounds should be set apart for this purpose.
The fishing industry is concerned that the reasons for setting apart certain grounds are well founded on the basis of scientific and other technical evidence. For example, the industry wishes to be sure that it is necessary to close the grounds for the entire year rather than for part of the year. I am also aware of the representations made to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). If one looks at the electoral map one sees that there is only a small stretch of coastline in his constituency. However, it is Aberdeen bay, which in some of the discussion documents is one of the designated areas. A point of controversy in that area is that skippers think that by using a larger mesh size it might be possible to continue fishing. That could be discussed properly if the scientific evidence was made available.
The new clause would provide that scientific evidence should be made available at the same time as publication of the order so that the House could judge whether the Secretary of State had made the order with a good weight of scientific evidence behind him. That would be a statutory duty lying on the Secretary of State. It would be preferable if the evidence were made available to the fishing industry beforehand.
We welcome very much the concession made by the Government, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay) showed when we discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. An amendment was brought forward in Committee to formalise the consultation procedures. Obviously the consultation procedures will have much more meaning if those whom the Secretary of State is consulting are properly briefed and know exactly the areas of discussion.
Proper consultation can take place only if the scientific material is made available. Only this week, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation again asked for some of the scientific data on which the draft proposals for nursery areas were based but had little success in getting the information out of the Scottish Office. The federation believes that, if it is to have meaningful consultations with the Secretary of State, information of that kind must be made available to it. That is the purpose of the new clause.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish briefly to add my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I think that it is fair to say that all hon. Members who have been lobbied by the fishing industry through deputations, delegations, correspondence and so on across the whole spectrum of this measure have been left in no doubt about the genuine frustration that has built up in the industry as a result of what it perceives—correctly, I believe—as the difficulty of obtaining information from the Government. That problem will be compounded when the Bill becomes law if orders brought forward by the Secretary of State are deficient through the lack of any built-in guarantee that the relevant information will be made available to the industry. On that basis, we wholeheartedly support the new clause.
The scientific and technical material to which my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland referred would be of practical use to the industry and to Members of Parliament who could then be briefed by experts in the industry before considering the Government's proposals. It would also be an important gesture of confidence by the Government in the industry if the Ministry were willing to publish the evidence on which orders were based and to make it freely available to the industry for its reaction.
For those sound and pragmatic reasons, we support the new clause and hope that the Minister will react positively and favourably to it.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I am provoked into taking part in the discussion by the somewhat cynical opportunism of the two hon. Members who have just spoken. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) will listen for a moment, he may benefit from a wee bit of advice. That is part of his problem. He knows all of the answers before he has been in the House a year.
I am surprised that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has not made representations to anyone else. I should be interested to know who made those representations, and whether it was done officially on behalf of the whole organisation, or of a local body.

Mr. McQuarrie: It was the Shetland fishermen.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) can make his own speech later.
My only justification for speaking at this point in the debate is my five years of responsibility at the Scottish Office. I listened to fishermen but never knew them to support scientific evidence unless it was in their favour. The only evidence that would be acceptable would allow them to catch more than the scientists recommend. I beg younger hon. Members—I know that I am getting old and may sound a bit patronising—not to jump to every fly that flies across the scene as if it would gain them popularity. It will not. A lot of hard bargaining is involved when it comes to scientific evidence. I shall give an example of that later.
I am a minority in my own party in my attitude to the EEC. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will agree with me, at least on that point. The

scientific evidence that is put forward by Danish scientists differs sometimes from that of British ones. To whom should we listen? Let us have courage and confidence in the integrity of our scientific advisers. What possible motive can a professional scientist have for recommending lower catches?

Dr. Godman: Is it not true that orders in relation to catches must earn the approval of the European Commission before being implemented? If that were so, would not the Government have in their possession the sort of technical and scientific documentation that was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) when he moved the new clause.

Mr. Brown: I was being ambiguous. The hon. Gentleman thinks that I am on his side, although I am not. I was merely pointing out that scientific evidence is a difficult area, and cannot be evaluated by laymen. That dilemma faces people in many walks of life. It is not that scientists are always right. They most certainly are not. Nevertheless, the best analysis that a fisherman can make is "I think that there are plenty of herring in the North sea because I saw some or heard some or caught fish that I should not have been catching."
We all know that sometimes there is substance in that approach and some justification for it. I merely suggest that it is wrong to write into the Bill a provision to the effect that all scientific evidence should be made available. I am not aware that there is an embargo on access to that information, or that the fishermen's organisations are prevented from employing scientific advisers. I am not aware that there has been a conflict of scientific advice on a pragmatic basis.
I can say, based on my experience, that sometimes Governments hide behind scientific advice because they want to get a better deal for their national fishermen.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman is quite right.

Mr. Brown: I may be quite right, but it is a different proposition from arguing about an inshore Bill, which would make scientific advice available as if there was a plot between the Government and scientists to deny a living to Scottish fishermen. As I have said, this is a piece of cynical opportunism on the part of Alliance Members. I am not aware of representations being made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation.

Mr. Home Robertson: I was not going to take part in the debate, but I must rise to that bait. It is very easy to make the sort of speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) has just made. If he represented a constituency such as East Lothian —[Interruption.] My hon. Friend had to deal with fishermen for a number of years in his capacity as Scottish Office Minister responsible for fisheries. My hon. Friend must know that many fishermen are deeply sceptical about some of the so-called hard and fast scientific evidence on which decisions are made. I take his point that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), who moved the new clause, is a bit of a chancer. We know that. He is a member of a party of chancers. We must expect this sort of thing from them.
However, there is a little substance in the point that has been raised. If decisions that affect the livelihood of fishermen are taken on the grounds of scientific evidence, it would be useful for all concerned to see the scientific


evidence and for it to be debated sensibly between the parties concerned. That is not always possible. The most recent example affecting fishermen in my area was the ban on sprat fishery in the Firth of Forth. That was imposed, admittedly not by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, but by Europe. On the strength of that, scientific evidence should be at least debatable.
The Minister, my hon. Friend and the fishermen know that there is a problem. It is fair to raise it, but there is not much to be gained from passing the new clause.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I do not know why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) made such a meal of this. It would be an innovation if everything that we did in the House were the result of someone lobbying us. I believe that the new clause is a reasonable request. I agree that there can be a conflict with regard to scientific evidence. In negotiations, fishermen might say that they do not accept a measure, but they know that it must be made.
When the Secretary of State makes such an order, it is reasonable for him to give the facts that led him to that conclusion. Such an explanation is due to the fishermen. There does not have to be an argument. The order will have been passed by that stage, and the Secretary of State will simply tell the fishermen the grounds for his conclusion. New clause 4 is a reasonable request.

Mr. Maclennan: The new clause is moved in a spirit of total seriousness, despite what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) said. His remarks were disappointing. He is a man for whom I have great personal respect, who does not usually indulge in attributing bad motives to hon. Members making a serious case. It is a serious case.
The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that the fishing industry is not always united in its approach to the division of the seas and has not shown a wholly united approach to the Bill. However, the context of the new clause is that we in Parliament are giving the Secretary of State vast powers that he has not had hitherto in this form. In exercising those powers, he will be able, after consulting whatever bodies he considers appropriate, to make regulatory arrangements that could exclude certain vessels from certain areas or include others. Those are difficult judgments, but Parliament has a part to play, and the hon. Gentleman should not overlook that. It will fall to the House to decide whether the Secretary of State's proposal should be given effect and whether the order should be passed. In making those decisions, the House of Commons has the right to be informed about the Secretary of State's basis of thinking. It should be better informed than it often is when it has to consider those matters.
We tabled the new clause not as a jeu d'esprit, nor to test the Minister's attitude, but because we believe in open government. We believe that when the Secretary of State puts forward proposals for Parliament to ratify, it is right that the considerations that he has had in mind and the advice that he has been given should be fully and frankly displayed. The most important advice that will influence his judgment will be the scientific and technical advice that we suggest he should publish. That is something that the whole House should regard as appropriate, not as a matter for partisan division or debate.
I do not know what representations the hon. Member for Provan has received on this or any other matters in the Bill, but I have received dozens of letters from organisations and individuals who are worried about the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. McQuarrie: Did the hon. Gentleman receive representations on this matter from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation or the Scottish fishermen's organisation?

Mr. Maclennan: I received letters from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and, furthermore, I discussed this matter with several of its members, as I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman has. The federation is sceptical about some of the scientific advice given to the Scottish Office. It does not believe that it is wholly satisfactory to proceed on the basis of the fiat of the Secretary of State, unsupported by evidence.
The hon. Member for Provan argued fairly that fishermen seek to turn evidence to their advantage; that is human nature. We are here not to safeguard the partisan interests of one section of the fishing industry but to look after the welfare of the entire industry, and we can do that best if we are well informed. That is why I ask the House to support the new clause.

Mr. John MacKay: Perhaps I could dip a gentle toe into the dispute on the Opposition Benches and tell the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that, in my experience of the fishing industry, although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) may have no fishing in his constituency, since he was at the Scottish Office he has been highly regarded by Scottish fishermen. I was about to add, in a spirit of reasonable compromise, that if I leave my minor role in the fishing industry similarly highly regarded by the fishermen, I shall be well satisfied.
The hon. Member for Provan was right to tell members of the Alliance, whose new clause this is, that it would be naive to believe that the publication of scientific evidence would be accepted by the fishermen as the end of the argument. I suspect that it will be accepted as the beginning of the argument, not the end.
Of course, the Government want a full and informed debate about the orders to be made under the Bill. The movers of the new clause have not thought out the timetable of the consultation process, the discussion with the industry and then an order coming before the House. We want a well-informed debate during consultation with fishermen, because we recognise the importance of measures made under the Bill to the daily lives and earnings of fishermen. That is why we have already introduced the statutory requirement for consultation before the orders are made. In that consultation exercise, the first thing the fishermen will wish to know is why the Secretary of State wants to make the order. Therefore, the Secretary of State must explain his reasons, and those reasons will include the scientific and technical factors.

Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister aware of the representations that have been made to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland during the past week by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to have that scientific information on nursery areas? If he is not aware of that, will he do his utmost to ensure that the information is made available to the federation as soon as possible?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman can take it that, in the discussions which will take place about that and other matters, the scientists and officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will explore with the fishermen the scientific evidence on which they based their conclusions on nursery areas. But that will not be the only factor to be taken into account; we must also consider the economic condition of the fishermen, the social structure of the areas, the marketing position for different species and sizes of fish, and the structure of the fleet, if we are talking about vessels and gear restrictions. I am not sure that all these can be comprehended under the heading of technical, but they would certainly feature in the Secretary of State's explanation to the industry.
We considered the phrase
publish, in such form as he considers appropriate.
The main source of advice will be the Department's servants, whether they be administrators, scientists or fishery officers and inspectors. The synthesis of that advice will be available during the consultation process to the fishing industry and, therefore, to the representatives of the fishing industry. Why seek to go to the length of a formal requirement to publish when the essential thinking behind an order will already be well known to the industry? If the order is prayed against, there will be a debate in the House in which the Minister will have to come to the Dispatch Box to defend and argue the case for the order and for whatever restriction he seeks under that order.
If I may deal with the Community, there is a precedent for the way in which I am suggesting that we should go about this. I am never very sure whether the Alliance is totally committed to the Community or whether occasionally it wants to snipe at it when it thinks that an odd vote is to be gained in Community elections.

Mr. O'Neill: The Minister should not believe that of the Alliance.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman says that I should not believe such a thing of the Alliance, and I will take his advice and try to put the best possible light on the way that I sometimes read critical reports from Alliance candidates about certain items emanating from the European Community. On the other hand, we are told that that is the only party fully in favour of the Common Market.
In the Community field, the main scientific advice for fisheries management is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES. Its reports are not published, but it is no secret that the Government, and other Governments in the Community, make the industry aware of the contents of the reports so that the fishermen's views can be taken into account before decisions are finally taken. That is only right. I cannot imagine that a similar procedure will not apply in the case of an order made under the Bill.
I assure hon. Members, as I have done in Committee and on Second Reading, that the reasons for making an order will be fully explained and, because of the breadth of inputs and the confidentiality of some of the advice, and the practicability and expense of publication, I repeat that I regret that I have to ask the House to oppose the new clause. I hope that on reflection, especially on the time-table of how the orders will come about, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will withdraw it.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister said that the Alliance is supposed to be in support of the Community yet it

sometimes takes objections to what emanates from it. His apparent misuse of logic would suggest that, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, we should welcome with open arms everything that the Government propose. The logic applied in that shows the lack of logic applied to the rest of the argument put forward from the Alliance Benches. It was not done with any sense of opportunism. Indeed, one is surprised at the amount of trouble that the new clause, which is designed to be helpful, has stirred up.
The Minister referred to the timetable. If he had listened to what I said, rather than replying with reference to his brief, he would have learnt that I made it equally clear that, while this information could be made available only at the time when the order was published and, therefore, would be of use during the parliamentary debate on it, if the order were prayed against, I considered that that was a statutory duty that should lie on the Secretary of State, and it would be more than helpful if that information were made available on a voluntary basis during the consultation period. It was never thought that any such information, if it were made available, would be the be-all and end-all of any argument. Indeed, as the Minister said, it might well be the start of the argument. Fishermen's associations may come up with their own independent surveys and scientific information.
We believe that any consultation can be on an informed basis only. We agree with the Minister that this will not be the only factor that will lie behind an order that the Secretary of State makes, but it will be an important one. We believe that such a debate can take place properly only if that information is available.
Therefore, I do not wish to withdraw the new clause, and I will be happy to put it to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes, 13, Noes, 131.

Division No. 347]
[10.40 pm


AYES


Ashdown, Paddy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bruce, Malcolm
Steel, Rt Hon David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Freud, Clement
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kirkwood, Archibald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Charles Kennedy.


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Freeman, Roger


Amess, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bright, Graham
Hanley, Jeremy


Budgen, Nick
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Harvey, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Cope, John
Hawksley, Warren


Dover, Den
Hayes, J.


Durant, Tony
Hayhoe, Barney


Eggar, Tim
Hayward, Robert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Henderson, Barry


Fallon, Michael
Hickmet, Richard


Forth, Eric
Hind, Kenneth


Fox, Marcus
Hirst, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Hooson, Tom






Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lawler, Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lilley, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Nicholas
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malone, Gerald
Terlezki, Stefan


Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moore, John
Walden, George


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Needham, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitfield, John


Norris, Steven
Whitney, Raymond


Onslow, Cranley
Wolfson, Mark


Osborn, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Page, John (Harrow W)
Woodcock, Michael


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Powley, John
Mr. Ian Lang.


Proctor, K. Harvey

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

GENERAL POWER TO PROHIBIT SEA FISHING IN SPECIFIED AREAS

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'area' to end of line 10 and insert 'within Scottish inshore waters'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): We will also take Government amendments Nos. 6 and 9.

Mr. MacKay: These are drafting amendments to improve the wording of clauses 1 and 2 and to clarify what are the waters covered by the Bill. Hon. Members will appreciate that the powers in clauses 1 and 2 are intended to cover the same area of sea —that is, the sea adjacent to the Scottish coast and within the six-mile limit—within which United Kingdom fishing vessels have exclusive access under the common fisheries policy.
By removing the appropriate words in each of those clauses and replacing them by a reference to "Scottish inshore waters," which term is then defined in clause 9, we hope to simplify the wording and remove the possibility of legal debate in the future on the compatibility of the two clauses.
Hon. Members who were present during the Committee proceedings will recall my explanation that the definition in clause 1 extended inland as far as the high water mark and included bays, estuaries, sea lochs, harbours and so forth. We have taken the opportunity in tabling these amendments to make this clear by specifically referring to the mean high water mark in the definition. I understand that this mark is usually shown on the charts covering coastal areas.

Mr. O'Neill: Will these changes deal with the problems that were highlighted in Committee in respect of the Solway firth, where, because of the shifting sands, the high water mark can change? Or are such problems to be the subject of negotiation between the DAF and the MAFF in an effort to achieve a proper management scheme for the area? I appreciate that it is a difficult matter, and it may be one of those loose ends that will have to be left to be resolved on an ad hoc basis as and when needs arise.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister said that this series of amendments would add clarity. If the hon. Gentleman considers this to be clarity, he will have to learn to do better. For example, amendment No. 9 says:
'Scottish inshore waters' means the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland"—
so far, so good—
and to the landward of a limit of six miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides.
That is a roundabout way of saying "the area six miles from the baseline." I suppose that his intentions are right, but the hon. Gentleman should try to do better in future.

Mr. MacKay: The problem raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the Solway firth results from the moving border between Scotland and England which is defined by the bed of the river, and this series of amendments will not do anything to improve that position. Any agreement covering the Solway will have to be arrived at between the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England.
While, therefore, they will not do anything about that difficulty, I hope that the amendment will resolve some of the other difficulties, and if the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) does not understand the way in which the provision must be worded, I can only assure him that it makes the position crystal clear to anybody who understands the terminology.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. O'Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 10, at end insert
`and appoint representative committees of management to report to him on the operation of the orders'.
The amendment is part of a debate which has continued since the Bill was introduced in another place. That debate has taken a variety of forms, but it has been concerned primarily with ensuring that there is adequate consultation with fishermen before orders are presented to the House. The new orders should be the subject of discussion by the interested parties. We are endeavouring in the amendment to give the Minister the right to appoint representative committees of management to report to him on the operation of the orders. This would be appropriate in some areas, but we are not seeking to impose an obligation upon him.
This is an opportunity formally to sustain and maintain a dialogue with the fishing industry. The dialogue takes place anyway, but we think that it would be useful for Ministers to have an opportunity to hear what the industry is thinking on a month-to-month and a year-to-year basis on the working of the orders.
We have been led to believe that the arrangements will in the main exist for some time. It would not be the most desirable form of review to say that after five years there will be a brief consultative process and that that will be the basis upon which amendments will be made. We would consider it far more satisfactory for the appropriate representatives of the industry to be called in at an earlier stage and for there to be some formalisation of what we would expect to be the normal procedure.
If the Minister says that he anticipates that consultations will continue after the orders are made, that may well go some way to satisfying us. At present we are unclear about the Minister's intentions once an order has been laid and has obtained the approval of the House. There may be instances when a dialogue between those most affected and the Ministry would be for the assistance of all concerned.

Mr. John MacKay: The Government do not feel that the amendment is necessary or that it is likely to add materially to our efforts to create a just and equitable inshore fisheries regime. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult the industry before orders are made. A committee of the sort envisaged by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) would appear to have no real function to perform. I have no doubt that the industry will make representations to the Secretary of State, and will continue to make representations, even if it has representation on the committee that is envisaged. It would be fully entitled to take that course.
More importantly, if the amendment were accepted, the Secretary of State would be faced with the task of servicing and funding such committees, determining their terms of reference and appointing their membership. It is the last function that would probably cause most of the problems. Inevitably the Secretary of State would be accused of giving too much representation or too little to a certain section of the industry. It is quite likely that he would be accused of both faults at the same time. Unless he created a huge and fairly unwieldy body which contained representatives of every conceivable type of interest in the industry, he would still have to consider representations from those who felt themselves insufficiently powerful within the committee. Anything that can be gained from setting up such a series of quangos can equally well be gained from a less formal approach.
We have declared our complete willingness to listen to all representations. We have said that we welcome the formation of ad hoc groupings of the industry in a particular area. We shall listen with great care to what those groups have to say. It is, however, best for the fishermen to be left to come together rather than to have an advice-giving structure imposed on them by the Government.
11 pm
It is significant that, although the amendment gives the committees the function of monitoring the operation of the orders and reporting to the Secretary of State on them, they are given the title of committees of management. In terms of the amendment, they will have nothing to manage. I

said repeatedly in Committee, and I am happy to say it again, that, even after the orders are made, the Government will not be turning away the fishing industry if it wants to make representations about the workings of the orders. That would be contrary to the experience that everyone — from the point of view of either the Department or the industry — has about the continued dialogue that occurs between the industry and the Department. There is probably no other Department that has such close and continuing consultation with the industry for which it is responsible as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in its relationship with the fishing industry.
I hope that, if the hon. Member for Clackmannan can accept my assurance that after the orders are passed there will be no slammed doors to the industry if it wishes to talk to the Department or Ministers involved, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Minister for his assurance that there will be continuing dialogue. He perceives the likelihood of considerable difficulties in deciding who should be on the committees. I sympathise with him in that task, but it is not an insuperable one. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his assurance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, leave out lines 11 to 20 and insert—
'(2) Orders under this section may prohibit, within the specified sea area, all or any, or a combination of the following—

(a) all fishing for sea fish;
(b) fishing for a specified description of sea fish;
(c) fishing by a specified method;
(d) fishing from a specified description of fishing boat; and they may—
(e) specify the period during which any prohibition is to apply;
(f) make exceptions to any prohibition contained in the order.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 7.

Mr. MacKay: The amendment seeks to replace subsection (2) of clause 1 with a new subsection which has been redrafted in the light of the comments made in Committee. I hope that the new wording expresses clearly the possible scope of any order made under this clause in a way that will be helpful to all those concerned with the legislation. The amendment does not give the Secretary of State any new powers but merely restates the powers which we believe he would have had even if the subsection had remained unamended. It provides that orders may be made prohibiting fishing for all sea fish, for specified descriptions of fish, by any specified method, by any specified description of fishing boat — we had an interesting debate on that matter — or by any combination of those. It provides also that the prohibitions may apply on a seasonal basis and that exceptions may be made to them—for example, to allow for scientific research.
As I have said, the subsection has been redrafted to take account of our discussions in Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that it represents a considerable improvement on the drafting of the clause.
The effect of amendment No. 7 is to allow the Secretary of State, when considering banning the carriage of any net,


to make an exclusion so that a fishing boat can be detailed to do scientific research using the net which would otherwise be banned. Our experience in the industry over the years shows that that type of provision of power for the Secretary of State can be useful.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 6, after `shall', insert
',unless the order provides otherwise,'. — [Mr. John MacKay.]

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, leave out lines 7 to 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 8 and 10.

Mr. MacKay: These are purely drafting amendments which simplify the wording of clauses 1 and 2. They delete the subsections which provide that the orders made under the clauses will be subject to the negative resolution procedure and replace them with a single subsection in clause 9 to the same effect. There is no substantive change to the Bill, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2

POWER TO PROHIBIT THE CARRIAGE OF SPECIFIED TYPES OF NET

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 13, leave out from 'area' to first 'of' in line 16 and insert 'within Scottish inshore waters,'.

No. 7, in page 2, line 16, at end insert
; and such an order may make exceptions to any prohibition contained therein'.

No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 17 to 19. —[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 5

POWERS OF SEA-FISHERY OFFICERS

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 4, line 29, at end insert
`after obtaining a warrant from the Sheriff or a Justice of the Peace.'.
Clause 5 confers upon sea fishery officers wide powers of search, which would not be available to police officers conducting a murder investigation. Although we have considerable reservations about the extent of the powers, we recognise that in many cases other subsections are necessary because they deal with events that take place at sea.
The amendment relates to powers exercised by officers under clause 5(7) and provides that before they search premises they should have obtained a search warrant from a sheriff or justice of the peace.
At common law, no one can have his premises searched unless he has been lawfully arrested. Search without a warrant will be permitted only in cases of urgency. There are few statutory exceptions to that — for example, section 23(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 provides that a search warrant may be issued to search the premises for dangerous drugs of a person who has not been arrested or charged.
There are few cases where statute allows a search without a warrant. An example would be the Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1967. Invariably, they relate to cases where the police are looking for stolen goods. We do not believe that the powers given to sea fishery officers under this subsection relate to stolen goods. They relate to the examination of documents which should be kept. If the officers have reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed, they can take that evidence to a sheriff or justice of the peace and obtain a warrant before the premises are searched.
We believe that the powers that are granted are wide. At common law, in cases of urgency the courts would look leniently at a search which had been done without a warrant. We believe that the amendment is a safeguard which the House should be keen to see maintained.

Mr. McQuarrie: I oppose the amendment, because the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that sea fishery officers would be searching premises for documents.
On Second Reading I referred to the poaching of salmon in an area from Fraserburgh to Cairnbulg in my constituency. Over the course of two days, 2,000 salmon were poached with the use of speedboats and taken to private dwellings. If a warrant had to be obtained from a justice of the peace, the fish could have been removed from the house and taken away by car. When the sea fishery officers entered the house, there would be no fish.
Line 30 on page 4 refers to "any such document". If I had poached 2,000 fish, I would be selling them and would require invoices. It would not be done by word of mouth, so there would be documents in the house to the effect that the house owner was invoicing fish.
I am thinking not about the sale of one poached salmon but about the sale of 10 or 20 salmon to a hotel or some other organisation. The fishery officer must have the protection that he requires and be able to enter the house and look for the documents. That is why the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. John MacKay: First of all, we are not introducing with this clause any new powers or giving more rein to the enforcement authorities than they already have at present in relation to other fisheries offences. The wording of the clause is an exact repetition of that found in section 15(2) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, and, so far as I am aware, the powers conferred on British sea fishery officers have been exercised with tact and understanding and have caused no complaint.
To continue to allow the exercise of those powers under United Kingdom and, indeed, EEC fisheries legislation but to restrict their use under this Bill would create an anomalous situation which would be hard to justify not only to those who support the proper enforcement of the law in fishery matters but to those who wish to see full backing for measures designed to conserve fish stocks.
While I recognise that the misgivings of the hon. member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) are sincerely voiced, we should look at what is actually in the clause, and — perhaps more important — what is not. First, the powers of entry, production, search and detention of documents may not be applied to a dwelling-house. That is explicitly prohibited, although I know that there is a feeling that some illegal activity, particularly poaching, is centred on residences rather than business


premises. Secondly, any entry to premises has to be made at a reasonable time and, on top of all that, the BSFO has to have reason to suspect that an offence has been committed before he can search premises or seize and detain any document.
The amendment as drafted would still allow the BSFO to enter premises and to require the production of documents. Only after that stage would he be required to obtain a warrant to search, but it is only after that initial stage that he may have reason to search. If the amendment was accepted, we would give the BSFO powers enough to make him suspicious but withhold the power to enable him to follow up those suspicions. If he has to break off to go away and obtain a warrant from a sheriff or justice of the peace, is it likely that the evidence will still be there when he gets back? If the existence of a relevant document were denied, under the proposed alteration that denial could never be gainsaid.
As I have mentioned, the power has been in existence for some time without causing complaint. There are remedies available should it ever be abused, although I doubt whether they would be needed. Fisheries inspectors are as much part of the fishing community as fishermen themselves and have to live within it. They therefore know how to carry out their duties with tact and circumspection where necessary, but they need backing to discover and prove offences when necessary. There is no point in passing Acts of Parliament and giving fishery officers certain powers if we deny them the fundamental power of accumulating the evidence.

Mr. McQuarrie: Subsection (7) of clause 5 uses the words
other than a dwelling-house".
I, too, used the word "dwelling-house", but garages or huts could also be involved. No one would keep 2,000 salmon in his house, because they would stink. The Bill refers only to a dwelling-house. It does not refer to the garages or huts that might be nearby. It is the house that is excluded, not the adjoining garages or huts.

Mr. MacKay: I know that my hon. Friend was one of those who mentioned illegal activities in dwelling-houses on Second Reading and was keen that we should give fishery officers powers. I accept his point about the garage and the outhouses. I am not a lawyer, and the best thing is for me to give him a definition of a dwelling-house later today or by letter.

Mr. Wallace: I have listened to the Minister. I do not accept that just because something is provided in other legislation it is right in this Bill. His reply does not come as a surprise, as his right hon. and noble Friend gave a similar reply to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Grimond in another place. As my right hon. and noble Friend said, it is no use arguing with Ailsa Craig, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—
'"Scottish inshore waters" means the sea adjacent to the coast of Scotland and to the landward of a limit of six miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, up to the mean high-water mark of ordinary spring tides.'.
No. 10, in page 6, line 15, at end insert—

`(2) Orders under section 1 or 2 of this Act shall be made by Statutory Instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. — [Mr. John MacKay.]

Schedule 1

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 5, after 'section 32', insert—
'(a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12 to 16.

Mr. MacKay: Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 15 are technical drafting amendments that are aimed at tidying the statute book, especially section 32 of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886. Schedule 1 already contains a reference to that section, the purpose of which is to replace references to the Fishery Board with references to the Secretary of State. However, section 32 of the 1886 Act also contains references to the officers of the board and, for consistency, they should also be removed.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 16 are simply further consequential amendments, the need for which came to light after the Committee stage and which I believe should be added to the Bill. The first part of amendment No. 13 inserts a reference to the Bill into section 374 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. It provides that in any legal proceedings taken under the Bill, the details of ownership of a fishing boat as recorded in the fishing boats register will be taken as conclusive evidence of the ownership of the fishing boat. Since the vast majority of Scottish fishing boats are recorded in the register, such a provision will be of assistance to the enforcement authorities. The second part of the amendment and amendment No. 16 replace references in sections 4 and 6 of the Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Act 1934 to the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1889, which is being repealed in this Bill, with references to orders under the Bill. This will maintain the present requirement on trawlers to have their fishing gear inboard while in an area in which trawling is prohibited.
Amendment No. 14 is a simple drafting amendment which repeals sections 4 and 11 of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1885.
I hope that the House will accept these straightforward amendments which tidy up the statute book.

Mr. Maclennan: I congratulate the Minister on underlining the relevance of the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act 1886. I am sure that Mr. Gladstone would have been delighted to think that this measure of the third Government that he formed and which enjoyed the support of my predecessor, Dr. Clarke, would be subject to amendment 98 years later.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 7, line 7, leave out `and' and insert';

(b) for the words "Secretary for Scotland" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State";
(c) the words from "and the Secretary of the Board" to "name of the Board" shall be omitted
(d) for the words "Chairman and Secretary of the Fishery Board" there shall be substituted the words "Secretary of State"; and
(e).'.

No. 13, in page 7, line 8, at end insert—

'Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 &amp; 58 Vict. c.60)

In section 374, after the words "Fishery Limits Act 1976" there shall be inserted the words "Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984".

Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Act 1934 (c.18)

In section 4(1) for the words "section six of the Herring Fishing (Scotland) Act 1889 or of any byelaw for the time being in force" there shall be substituted the words "an order under section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984".

In section 6—

(a)the definition of "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts" is repealed; and
(b) in the definition of "illegal trawling"—

(i) for the words "section six of the Herring Fishing (Scotland) Act 1889 or of any byelaw for the time being in force" there shall be substituted the words "an order under section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984"; and
(ii) the words from "and the expression" to the end of the definition are repealed.'. — [Mr. John MacKay.]

Schedule 2

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 8, line 28, column 3, leave out 'Section 4' and insert 'Sections 4 and 11'.

No. 15, in page 8, line 29, at end insert—

'49 &amp; 50 Crofters Holdings Vict. c. 29. (Scotland) Act 1886
 In section 32, the words from "and the Secretary of the Board" to "name of the Board".'.

No. 16, in page 8, line 41, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 6, the definition of "Herring Fishery (Scotland) Acts", and in the definition of "illegal trawling" the words from "and the expression" to the end of the definition.'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a most interesting debate today and in Committee, and I shall not delay the House long in asking for a Third Reading of the Bill. It is a measure of considerable importance to Scottish fishermen and the Scottish fishing industry. It is intended to modernise and simplify the existing body of legislation governing fishing in Scottish inshore waters. In summary, it provides for the Secretary of State, after due consultation, to regulate, by order, fishing within the six-mile limit. Such orders can prohibit all fishing, fishing for particular species, by particular methods, from specified descriptions of fishing boat or any combination of these.
Especially welcome to many fishermen is the fact that the Bill removes the three-mile limit which has been the cause of a great deal of heart-searching, a little prosecution and some fines in the Scottish fishing industry for many years. It gives powers to British sea fishery officers to enforce the new regulatons and provides for the recovery of fines. The Bill also seeks to tidy up the statute book, as we have just been doing, by removing much of the dead wood amongst the fisheries legislation which has accumulated over the years.
Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have tabled amendments to provide formally for consultation with appropriate bodies before any order is made. Such orders will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have also taken the opportunity to add some additional

provisions which will be of benefit in combating the salmon poacher. These are a power to restrict the carriage of specified types of net, with monofilament nets being our main concern, and to allow water bailiffs to enforce any orders made under the Bill relating to fishing for salmon.
One of the key elements in the Bill is that it is a general enabling measure which will allow the Secretary of State to respond flexibly to the changing needs and circumstances of the fishing industry, both now and in the future. The Bill has been generally welcomed by both sides of the House, and I am grateful to all the hon. Members involved in its consideration for the constructive attitude they have taken to it. I believe it will prove to be a useful and valuable measure, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. O'Neill: This has been a useful exercise. Those of us who participated in Committee found that there was a fair measure of give and take between the two sides. The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) can speak for himself, but I think everyone sought to get the Bill into a form which would be acceptable to the industry. The discussion in Committee resulted in general agreement. The Bill now includes opportunities for consultation and parliamentary scrutiny which did not exist before. There are also provisions to deal with salmon poaching which were not available prior to this stage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has recognised throughout that he should not regard the general enabling provisions as a light responsibility. I hope that his successors and the Secretary of State will take the same view. If those provisions are handled wrongly they could provide an opportunity for almost draconian action. If the Minister's successors handle the matter with the same sensitivity as he has displayed throughout the consideration of the Bill we can be reasonably hopeful. It is not often that I find myself being complimentary to the Minister. He invariably makes an unholy mess of his responsibility in other matters. Here he has shown a degree of flexibility and sensitivity which I only wish he would exercise in regard to the Health Service and other subjects.
My hon. Friends and I recognise that much out-of-date legislation has been replaced by provisions for flexible regimes in various parts of Scotland which will involve, we hope, all sectors of the fishing industry. As a result, the fishing industry should be more effective and safer. At the end of the day we hope that the industry will be able to provide fish at prices the people can afford and of a quality and in quantities that they wish to buy.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene briefly to say something about salmon conservation, which the amendment made in Committee—now clause 2 of the Bill—opens up. It is an important subject in which interest should be shared throughout the whole of the United Kingdom as salmon conservation and the fight against poaching cannot be isolated within the boundaries of Scotland. I hope that that will not be regarded as a contentious comment.
I hope, too, that my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me for saying that, although the clause is most welcome in itself, one or two of the arguments that he adduced in its favour in Committee went a little far.


Although it is useful to have power in the Bill to ban the carrying of monofilament gill nets, he was perhaps a little carried away when he told the Committee:
The Bill gives us an opportunity to do something about the huge growth in salmon poaching. Anyone who looks at the statistics on salmon caught in the past decade or so will see the continual decline, especially in spring fishing.
He then said that the clause would go a long way towards stopping the use of monofilament nets
and to bring back the runs of salmon which are so important both to the legitimate netsmen and to angling interests." —[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 8 May 1984; c. 67–70.]
I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that the major threat and the major cause of the decline in salmon numbers off the east coast of Scotland is much less likely to be the use of monofilament nets, which has been illegal in Scotland for many years, than the activities south of the border of what is known as the north-east drift net fishery. I appreciate that that is not my hon. Friend's responsibility, but I hope that he has had the chance to read the minutes of the recent meeting between the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and representatives of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, at which the association no doubt stressed once again the change in character of the north-east drift net fishery since 1959 when it was a fairly simple, traditional hemp net fishery with an average annual catch of about 2,200 salmon and grilse.
Since then, it has developed through successive stages of nylon drift nets, the issue of more licences, the change to monofilament and now the issue of large numbers of licence endorsements to the point when the catch for the last season for which figures should shortly be available will be about 70,000 fish for Northumbria alone, if that is an accurate declaration of the actual catch. In fact, understatement or underestimate of the catch probably means that the whole fishery accounted for 140,000 fish in the 1983 season, and I believe that research carried out by the two Ministries has established that 94 per cent. of those fish were bound for Scottish waters.
The toll being taken by the north-east drift net fishery cannot be sustained indefinitely. The decline to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred in Committee is difficult to measure, but the annual average catches in the east and north-east of Scotland have undeniably declined in the past eight years by about 20,000 fish while the number of fish taken in the north-east has increased substantially —probably by the same number of salmon not caught in Scotland, if I may so put it. That cannot be allowed to continue. If the Minister has not seen the figures, I am sure that those prepared by Mr. Ian Mitchell, managing director of the Tay salmon fisheries, will convince him of the seriousness of the situation, not least in the threat that it presents to employment in Scotland.
The threat to employment is difficult to measure, but it is undeniable. Hon. Members will have seen reports about the impact of declining salmon stocks on the tourist industry in Scotland. I believe that the district salmon fishery boards have been extremely conservative in calculating that for every job gained in the north-east of England two are lost in Scotland. That must be the absolute minimum. The Sunday Times colour supplement recently contained the following statement in an article about the Tay fishery:
A survey carried out in 1982 showed that visiting salmon anglers generate about £140 million annually for the Scottish tourist industry. Equally important, it showed that salmon

angling provides direct support for 30,000 jobs—more than 30 per cent. of the total employment support generated by the entire Scottish tourist industry — while the commercial netting industry provides no more than 1,500 jobs in seasonal and part-time employment.
That article was written to set the rodsmen and the netsmen against each other in Scotland. We should not see it as a controversy between rod and netting interests, any more than I want to present it as a conflict between Scottish and English fishermen. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the point that the subject is so important that it must be considered on a national basis. Sectarian interests are not involved.
The Atlantic Salmon Trust Ltd., about which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) probably knows nothing, as well as the Salmon and Trout Association and the British Field Sports Society, would agree that the priority must be to conserve salmon stocks nationally, a policy which requires national action. I hope that I can carry my hon. Friend with me in supporting a national tagging scheme, which is urgently required. That would cut off salmon poachers from their markets for stolen fish. If that were achieved, it would make a contribution. I hope and believe that that subject is being considered urgently by Ministers in the Scottish Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Some of the evidence that I have suggests that the Scottish Office shows some reluctance and has made heavy weather of the practicability of introducing a salmon tagging scheme in Scotland, especially because of the absence of a rod licence system north of the border. That can be overcome. If the Minister studies the 1951 Act, he will find that Scottish salmon fishery proprietors are the most appropriate people to undertake tagging. They already submit returns and are supposed to give written permission to anyone who wishes to fish in their waters. It would not be difficult to introduce a system in which they helped to operate tagging.
The fish farmers seem to find peculiar difficulties in relation to such a scheme. I do not think that we should be susceptible to their objections, which should be overcome. If they are lucky, grants should be available to overcome problems. Subsidies in that direction are not unknown.
I refer to a phrase in a letter from Lord Gray of Contin in reply to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), in which Lord Gray referred to a "cost effective scheme". If all that matters is the cost, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that the tagging scheme, like the other measures that we want to see introduced, is a conservation measure rather than one of revenue raising. I hope that the finances will not be such a Government preoccupation that they will use them as an argument for doing nothing.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is raising a number of propositions. I agree with some of them. Many hon. Members may wish to debate them later at length. However, neither the salmon tending scheme nor the restrictions on the netting of fish at sea is in the Bill. They cannot be debated at Third Reading. I am worried that, if the hon. Gentleman proceeds with his arguments, those hon. Members who wish to debate the Bill more fully will be precluded from doing so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is correct in saying that matters raised in Third Reading debates must be related to the Bill. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is going a little wide. I am sure that he will relate his remarks directly to the Bill.

Mr. Onslow: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed cannot see the connection between what I have been saying and the contents of the Bill. When the Minister introduces a clause on the basis that it will bring back the salmon runs, end the long decline and make a major contribution to the fight against the huge growth in poaching, it is open to us, and right, to test those assumptions.
I believe that the Minister will agree on reflection that something like a salmon tagging scheme would make a much greater contribution to the conservation of salmon stocks than the relevant part of the Bill. I do not think that it is unreasonable for me to draw that comparison, but I shall not dwell on it as I do not wish to detain the House too long.
A great many other things need to be done. I shall not go through the list of them as it would infuriate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, although they might be new to him. Poaching is not the only problem. We want effective action against poaching, which bites on a national scale. Powers to enforce the ban against monofilament nets in a relatively small area where problems exist are welcome, but they do not go far enough. I hope that the Minister recognises that there is a great deal more to be done.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I said in Committee that, although I welcomed the Bill—I still think that it is a useful measure, and the tidying up of the legislation was long overdue—my caveat was that it had been hijacked to some extent by the salmon lobby. The speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) proves that.
I regret that the Government have abolished the three-mile limit, but I concede that sections of the fishing industry are happy to see it go. With regard to salmon, I supported the idea of some protection for the method of fishing by nets on fixed stakes, which went on without detriment to salmon catchers for hundreds of years, but then the salmon lobby got the bailiffs' powers tightened up.
Monofilament nets are also referred to in the Bill. Many fishermen have invested much money in monofilament nets, which have no connection with salmon fishing. They have been used to fish for cod, ling, tusk, haddock and whiting, and recently for crayfish, because they are weighted on the bottom, and they have nothing to do with fishing for salmon.
Many of those fishermen have thousands of pounds at stake, much of it funded by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. If they were caught by a blanket banning of monofilament nets, there would be a shout of rage and a great loss to fishermen throughout the country. I hope that there will be no precipitate action along those lines under clause 1, on fishing by a specified method.
It is deplorable that the netting of salmon is going on, but many of the estates that are complaining about it are netting on a large scale. They are not allowing the fish to be caught by anglers, and they are the people who are

shouting about poaching. I shall not go into the salmon question as that is not what the Bill is about; it is about inshore fishing. I know, before someone corrects me, that a salmon is a fish that goes to sea, but that was not the main subject of the Bill. I am sorry that so much of it has been taken up by the salmon lobby.
I welcome the Bill. It was debated in a good spirit.

Mr. Bill Walker: I make no apology for being part of the salmon lobby. The river Tay is the largest salmon river in the country, probably the most prolific at the best of times. Most of the fishing beats are in my constituency. It is probably true to say that all the rod fishing beats are in my constituency. Therefore, throughout the Bill's consideration I expressed a constituency interest.
I welcome the measures in the Bill to deal with aspects of salmon poaching. It was right that they were included. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) felt that that was wrong. After all, the fish never know the difference, which part of the river they are in and whether it is the net of a landed gentleman or the rod — as it often is in my constituency — of someone from the mining villages. Many of those people fish in my constituency, and long may they continue to do so. I hope that at the moment they are not doing more fishing than work.
I shall not discuss the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall put my argument simply and say that I support everything that my hon. Friend said, because we cannot look on the Tay or any other river in isolation. We must consider salmon as a national asset, and many jobs in my constituency depend upon them. If the Tay were to lose its fish, there would be as many squeals heard from my constituency as there have been about the problems at Bathgate. Those who come to the Tay to fish, and who stay in hotels in the area, are the main source of income for many of my constituents. Therefore, I must take an interest in anything that puts their jobs at risk.
I would welcome some form of salmon tagging and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister — who has a special interest in one fishing beat in my constituency, although I believe that his sons catch many more fish than he does—will continue to enjoy the delights of north Tayside. I hope that Opposition Members will not regard this measure as an attack on one sort of fishing. We are looking for a balance, because if not enough fish go up our rivers there will not be enough fish in the sea. Unless we nurture our stocks, and unless the fish continue to return to spawn, in future there will be no fishing for anyone.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles was correct to say that some landed proprietors net fish as well as allow others to fish on parts of their rivers, and they, too, are interested in achieving a balance. I met them last week, and they drew my attention to the fact that they wanted to ensure that everyone could get out of the rivers what the rivers previously provided in abundance. We should be fools if we allowed stocks to die and no longer to be available to our children and our children's children.

Mr. Wallace: I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that some measures in the


Bill are designed to attack the poaching of salmon. They are important and welcome measures, but the point of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was that, when the Bill was published, most of the debate centred on clause 1, which gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to make orders to restrict fishing in specified areas. Perhaps most of the major arguments will come in later debates, on whether areas should or should not be designated. When we debated the Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee we believed that, since such wide powers were being given to the Secretary of State, we had to build in safeguards. It should be recorded that the Minister has accommodated many of the suggestions made on Second Reading by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
We especially welcome the statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to consult interested groups. Until now, the Scottish Office has been prepared to consult, but it is as well to legislate for that lest any future Secretary of State is not so well disposed to consultation. Equally, we welcome the clarification of the negative procedure in the amendments we debated earlier this evening, so that there will now be an opportunity to debate orders laid by the Secretary of State.
The Minister said a great deal in Committee, although it does not appear in the Bill, about local management agreements. The industry still believes that many regulations could better be made by the local people coming to an agreement. There would be no need for orders. Having read one of the Committee reports, I understood the Minister to say that, if an ad hoc committee came up with such an agreement, there would be no need for such an order. If that is the case, the industry would welcome it if the Minister made that clear when he replies to the debate.

Mr. Kennedy: Would my hon. Friend concur with the impression that I received in my part of the Highlands that the effect of the Bill has been to encourage a degree of agreement, co-operation and unanimity of opinion within the industry that did not exist previously?

Mr. Wallace: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It would appear that the Bill has focused the minds of a number of people, and agreement has been found where, prior to the Bill being presented, people thought that agreement was impossible. That is a good omen for the future. If the Secretary of State would be prepared to encourage such voluntary agreements, that would be welcomed by the industry.
In the circumstances, we would not wish to divide the House on the Bill, and we welcome its Third Reading.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): To a person uninitiated in the fishing world, it might seem odd that the Member for St. Ives, who represents the far south-west of the United Kingdom, should have the temerity to intervene on Third Reading of the Bill. However, any Opposition Members who express that view do not know much about the fishing industry. If they did, they would realise that there is often an affinity of interest and, dare I say it, on some occasions a conflict of interest between the fishing industries of Cornwall and those of Scotland.
The progress of the Bill is being watched with interest in Cornwall as presenting a way forward. What interests

me particularly, and the reason why I rise, is the concept behind the Bill of what constitutes an inshore fishery. I am delighted to see here the Minister of State who, despite his Scottish name, represents so well the fishing industry south of the border.
Not for the first time, there is a marked difference in approach between fishing and the regulation of fishing north of the border and that south of the border, particularly with regard to what constitutes an inshore fishery. The case has long been put forward by the sea fisheries committees, particularly in Cornwall and Devon, that their jurisdiction should be extended from three miles to six miles. I support that claim wholeheartedly. In following the passage of the Bill in this House and through another place, I see enshrined in it the concept that an inshore fishery extends up to six miles. That concept has been welcomed by the Government and the Scottish Office —particularly the Under-Secretary— which I welcome.
Greater protection should be afforded to inshore fishermen. It is an irony that, if our good friends from Scotland come to Cornwall, they can fish up to a three-mile limit, whereas the one or two boats that go north from Cornwall to Scotland may find themselves precluded from fishing inside a six-mile limit. The irony and possible unfairness may be compounded by the fact that, because of the workings of the Hague agreement— a matter I have long since challenged, and in which I understand the present leader of the Social Democratic party had a hand —the territorial limits of the south-west are six miles, whereas in Scotland the territorial limits are in the main 12 miles.
I wish the Bill godspeed. I hope that it is a success. I should like to see some of its concepts, particularly on what constitutes an inshore fishery, extended.

Mr. Maclennan: Why has the hon. Gentleman been so unsuccessful in persuading his English colleagues in the Government to follow the example of his Scottish colleagues?

Mr. Harris: I do not want to score party points. The Hague agreement was negotiated when the hon. Gentleman's leader was at the Foreign Office. The Hague agreement cannot be undone. This is not the occasion to rake over history, although I should be happy to debate the issue with any SDP Member some other time.
I wish the Bill well. In the far south-west of Cornwall, we shall watch its implementation with interest.

Mr. McQuarrie: I took part in the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, and on Third Reading I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, but I should like him to consider some details. Will he have consultations with the Scottish fishermen's organisation, the federation and the White Fish Association? They have expressed severe reservations about designated static gear areas because they would seriously affect the Atlantic fleet.
I congratulate the Minister on amendment No. 3 because it widens the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will not delay orders, particularly in respect of areas where it is proposed to designate salmon fishing only to those with a licence. Delay will not help to check the enormous amount of poaching in the north-east of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will raise those matters with the Secretary of State. I welcome the Bill.

Mr. Soames: I make no apology for speaking, because I am a keen salmon fisherman, conservationist and lover of Scotland, its countryside and sports. I am reluctant to speak when I see the lairds' party so well represented by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on this important step forward. He is keen to ensure that the problems are dealt with satisfactorily. I support the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
I emphasise two important points. First, when talking about inshore fishing, it is worthwhile considering taking steps to give powers to the relevant authorities to prevent the netting of salmon after a prolonged drought in the river and sea estuaries. An enormous congregation of salmon builds up. The river runs down and the salmon cannot smell the fresh water. They come in on the tide and are taken by the nets and those left go out on the tide. That process is repeated again and again and enormous numbers of salmon are taken, to the detriment of angling interests. I urge Ministers to take steps to ensure that something is done about that in England and in Scotland.
Largely due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking and hon. Members on both sides of the House, steps are being taken to attempt to solve the serious problem of salmon conservation. The industry for sporting salmon fishing, off both shore and river, is important to the Scottish economy. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to promote a close liaison between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his Department in Scotland. I know that there are difficult problems to be overcome and that strides have been made, but I do not detect the spirit of urgency needed.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) feels strongly about employment in Scotland. I have the privilege of having been invited to fish on a number of the great Scottish rivers—something that I enjoy and look forward to from year to year. I know of beats on Scottish rivers where men have been employed for generations as river keepers and ghillies, and generally involved in the industry. Those people will not be replaced, because the level of stock is falling dramatically. Some temporary work may be available in the summer with let rods, but the jobs will disappear unless the salmon come back. It is important to the interests of the Highlands and Scotland as a whole that the jobs are preserved and enhanced and that the Scottish economy is expanded. There is great opportunity for further expansion of this leisure industry in Scotland.
I apologise for detaining the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, the greatest priority must be to conserve the salmon stocks.

Mr. Charles Morrison: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and other hon. Members, I am deeply concerned about the future of salmon. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food listening to the debate. Like Oliver Twist, I ask for more.
I congratulate the Government and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland on introducing the Bill and steering it through the House. It is a major

step in the right direction. However, I hope that the Scottish Office will not feel that the Bill is merely an academic exercise. It is of the utmost importance that the powers contained in clauses 1 and 2 should be used. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage and liaise with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food so that it will take helpful action on salmon fishing and netting in England. If there is no action to prevent interception netting on the north-east fishery——

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yet again issues are being raised about fisheries in England, which English Members might feel entitled to debate at some length. I am tempted to make a speech. The Bill is confined to Scotland, and I would be out of order in seeking to explain how, for example, many rigorous conservation methods are followed in England to preserve the salmon fisheries. We are constantly being drawn into the debate by Conservative Members who continually refer to the position in England.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The early clauses of the Bill are fairly wide. I have not heard anything out of order.

Mr. Morrison: I was making the point that if the powers in the Bill were not fully used, if a scheme was not introduced soon to control the interception netting on the north-east fisheries, and if a tagging scheme was not introduced, many of the intended effects of the Bill would be stultified.
Despite this measure, salmon will remain an endangered species. There is a race taking place now between the reduction of salmon stocks by netting, wherever that is occurring, and the efforts of salmon farmers to replace salmon as a food available for anyone in Britain who wishes to purchase it. Unfortunately, the race is being lost by the salmon, but it is also a loss in terms of the recreation of many people throughout the United Kingdom, for employment in Scotland and for the Scottish tourist trade. I hope, therefore, that legislation will be introduced shortly to deal with that issue and that it will have effect in England as well as in Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: I have already welcomed the main provisions of the Bill, which, as several hon. Members have pointed out, has been generally welcomed by the Scottish fishing industry.
I would not have delayed the House at this hour had it not been for the incredibly patronising remarks of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). When speaking about the natives of Scotland, he did not go quite so far as to say that some of his best friends were Scots, but I still have the impression that he would not like his daughter to marry one.

Mr. Soames: I am married to a Scot. I understand the difficulty of the hon. Gentleman, as a major landowner in Scotland, in appreciating the interests of those who enjoy Scotland and the Scottish people. He would be wrong to interpret my remarks as being patronising on in any way derogatory. I said at the outset that I spoke as a Member of the Parliament of the whole United Kingdom.

Mr. Home Robertson: It is clear that I touched a raw nerve in the hon. Gentleman, and, while I understand what he said in his closing remarks, he should appreciate that many of us feel that it would be more appropriate if specifically Scottish legislation such as this were dealt


with by a Scottish parliament. There is not much justification for hon. Members such as he to speak or vote on internal Scottish affairs which are already devolved to the Scottish Office.
I suppose that we should have known what to expect when the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), for Crawley and others come into the Chamber at this hour when a Bill dealing with Scottish fishers was being debated. It must be said that some interests have been poaching the resources of Scotland for a long time, and it might he suggested that some Conservative Members who have spoken tonight might have spoken on behalf of those interests.

Mr. Bill Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that my hon. Friends and others should stop coming to Scotland and thereby further affect the job opportunities of those who work on the Scottish rivers.

Mr. Home Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman contains himself for a minute or two, he will ascertain exactly what I wish to suggest. I agree with the principle that is being discussed, which involves the need for conservation of stocks of salmon and trout, for example. There are jobs involved in their conservation and it is part of the economy, whether it is netting in certain areas or the operation of the tourist industry. It is a fact that the stocks of these fish are diminishing at an alarming rate and that they have been doing so for a number of years. Something must be done about that.
The Minister would argue that something has been done about it in the Bill and I think that there is broad support for what he is suggesting. However, as I explained in Committee, I think that something far more radical is required. A completely new approach must be taken to the management of freshwater fisheries in Scotland and to the ownership of those fisheries. Those who represent the proprietors of lucrative salmon fishing rights are protesting too much in this debate.
Clause 7 gives additional powers to river fishery boards in Scotland, which control fisheries offshore as well as in the rivers. I shall cite one of the boards which borders on the waters adjacent to my constituency. The river Tweed commissioners' council includes no fewer than 38 riparian owners, including a representative of the Crown Estate Commissioners, two dukes, one marquis, one earl, two viscounts, a lord, the son of a lord, a knight, a major-general and three other retired officers. I have no doubt that they are all splendid people——

Mr. Soames: In what capacity does the hon. Gentleman serve as a Tweed commissioner?

Mr. Home Robertson: I serve as a commissioner because I was elected by the Berwickshire district council, to which I was elected before I came to this place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not get too excited about that.
I have no doubt that the commissioners are extremely worthy but they should not be surprised that a body that is so heavily loaded in favour of one set of vested interests does not command universal respect or support from those who fish offshore or of the many who fish on the rivers. Until there is a radical review of the ownership and control of these rights we shall continue to have problems. The law which entrenches the rights of vested interests has fallen into disrepute and it will not serve an especially

useful purpose to build more and more on to discredited 19th century legislation and to add to the powers of existing vested interests. I am glad to have the opportunity to put that point on the record and perhaps to balance some of the arguments which have been advanced by Conservative Members.
I repeat that I welcome the generality of the Bill. I welcome especially the useful concession which the Minister made in Committee when he let the Fisheries Act 1705 remain on the statute book. At one stage that Queen Anne Act, which guaranteed some of the basic rights of Scottish fishermen, was to be swept aside in a great tidying-up operation to be mounted under schedule 2. I am glad that in Committee the Minister accepted the amendment which prevented that from happening. That showed some useful spirit in Committee and elsewhere. I am sorry that some Conservative Members have taken this opportunity to raise certain issues involving salmon fisheries in Scotland.

Mr. Beith: I presume that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and other hon. Members sought to suggest that, in giving the Bill a Third Reading, we should reflect that it will not be effective because some provisions in England were not associated with it or made part of it. I sought to argue that they could not be made part of it because the Bill, in the way it is drafted, is confined to Scotland. Those hon. Members cannot be allowed to go unchallenged in suggesting that the Bill's effectiveness will be undermined because of the ineffectiveness of the operation of controls on salmon fisheries in England, especially in the north-east. To say that would be to imply, as the hon. Member for Devizes and other hon. Members clearly did, that, for example, the Northumbrian water authority exercises no control in its areas over the netting of salmon at sea, whereas in fact, it has an extremely rigorous licensing system, enumerating in immense detail the number of boats who can fish in them, who they are by name and the seasons in which they can fish. Those provisions are rigorously enforced.
As a Member of Parliament representing many of the fishermen involved, I have come across, as no doubt have many other hon. Members, the problems that arise when that rigorous enforcement takes place. The constituents of many hon. Members are affected including those of the Home Secretary. They seek salmon in a strictly regulated. way. I venture to suggest to Ministers that much can be learned from the operation of the scheme used by the Northumbrian water authority, which is looked at enviously by the former constituents of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who used to represent Berwickshire. That area is now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). Those constituents wish that they were party to such a scheme.
In making that comment, the Conservative Members who identify themselves with the salmon lobby are implicitly attacking the Tweed commissioners, to whom the hon. Member for East Lothian referred. Those commissioners are responsible for the enforcement of controls in the Tweed river, the Tweed estuary and the Tweed box, which is a widely defined area of sea, outside the Tweed estuary. There is a long-established salmon netting system in that area which goes back many generations and requires control and enforcement.


Conservative Members might be suggesting that the Tweed commissioners are falling down in their job in carrying out enforcement in that area. If so, they should be more specific, not least because I and some of my hon. Friends are meeting the commissioners in a week or so. If Conservative Members wish to present more detailed criticisms, they should make them available to us.
We must remember what, curiously, was properly pointed out by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—there must be a balance between the groups of people involved. In striking a balance, we must pay particular regard to those who fish salmon not for their entertainment or amusement but to earn their daily bread to make a living.

Mr. Bill Walker: If the hon. Gentleman had studied the figures carefully, he would have realised that many more people are dependent on rod fishing for their livelihoods than on net fishing. All the hotels, the people who work in them and in the other services provided, and those who come into the area are dependent on that fishing. I am talking about hundreds of jobs in some very small areas and, in total, thousands of jobs. I doubt whether the number of those involved in the netting industry comes anywhere near those figures.

Mr. Beith: I am well aware of how the statistics are constructed. If the statistics for those earning a living from catching fish, are constructed on the same basis, the same consequences follow. Once those who are involved in the associated trades are brought in, the statistics arise in the same way. Those who fish for a living for salmon at sea and in the rivers of Northumberland, county Durham and north Yorkshire are providers of income, not only for their families but for the shops and trades that are ancillary to the fishing industry. Exactly the same network of economic dependence arises in the fishing industry as arises in the leisure industry which is so important in Scotland.

Mr. McQuarrie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman twice rose on a point of order in relation to comments made by my hon. Friends. He has just mentioned Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire, which my knowledge of geography tells me are in England. Is the hon. Gentleman drifting slightly from the content of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Bill? He should concentrate his remarks on Third Reading rather than on the English areas.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will leave that matter to me.

Mr. Beith: I was responding to an intervention at the time. In my other remarks I was responding to remarks by Conservative Members about why, in proceeding to Third Reading, we should have regard to whether the Bill would be rendered ineffective, partially or wholly, by what went on on the other side of the border.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is becoming so excited, because I am paying him a compliment. He was right when he said that a balance must be struck between the groups of people involved. I am laying stress upon the fact that a great many of the people involved earn their living from fishing.
It may be difficult for Conservative Members to understand, but sitting on the Opposition Benches we hear

hon. Member after hon. Member speaking for rod fishing and those of us who are interested in those who go to sea in the rough North sea in small open boats to make their living from fishing become a little sick and tired of the parade of those who talk about the rights of the landowners and the rod fishermen. There is a proper leisure fishing industry in Scotland and England. It is not solely in Scotland. It is part of the balance that we must strike when we work out how to conserve salmon stocks to ensure that they are available to those in all the different categories who have fished legitimately for many generations. We shall not achieve satisfactory results if we try to tag on — that is not a direct allusion to salmon tagging —desultory discussion on aspects of salmon fishing in a Bill which is necessarily confined to many other aspects of Scottish inshore fishing.

Mr. Home Robertson: Can the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that his constituents will be allowed to go to sea in open boats to catch salmon with the protection of the law while other people in Scotland, under the Bill, will be prosecuted if they carry a net that looks as if it might be capable of being used to catch salmon? Does he think that something should be done about that?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman knows that the differences that he described existed for the whole period that he represented Berwick and East Lothian during part of which a Labour Government were in power. Neither then nor more recently has he persuaded them to change the law in Scotland.
For many years in England there has been a licensed, regulated and controlled salmon fishery off the north-east coast. That is part of the balance, but there are many other aspects which must be considered. They must be discussed on another occasion and must not be attached to a Bill which for the moment seems to be in danger of being hijacked by interests going far wider than those that the Bill was designed to meet.

Mr. Maclennan: It is rather odd that the Third Reading has been dominated by representatives of rod fishing from Crawley to Devizes. It would be a pity if that were the way that the Bill left the Floor of the House.
The Bill is of great importance to many communities which are not blessed with salmon. Although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is right to say that there are a number of people whose livelihoods depend upon salmon fishing, the number of people in remote communities whose livelihoods depend upon sea fishing for white fish, pelagic stock, creel fishing and static gear fishing is infinitely greater. The House should not lose sight of that.
The debate has been stimulated by the hon. Member and his hon. Friends and that is a reflection of an inherent imbalance in the Bill. It makes sensible provisions for salmon fishing and poaching. Clause 3 makes proposals for salmon fishing that we cannot debate tonight in relation to sea fishing. Those proposals — which are the substance of the matter, and which gave rise to considerable debate when it became known, following the recommendations of the committee on the regulation of inshore fisheries, that the Government intended to legislate—have not yet been given the full benefit of consideration by Parliament.
As the Minister may acknowledge, the fishing industry was very concerned about the Bill and remains somewhat unsure of how the Government will use the substantial powers that they are taking to regulate the industry. It is true that the industry recognises that the Government have to have those regulatory powers, but the question how they intend to use them remains somewhat mysterious.
I am slightly anxious about the fact that, when the Government have made up their mind how to move, following the consultations which are now to be part of the statutory process—and we welcome that amendment to the Bill—the House of Commons, if it wishes to debate the matter, will be able to proceed only by means of a negative resolution.
Crucial decisions are involved for some fragile communities. Let us take the part of Scotland to which the mind of the hon. Member for Crawley no doubt turns when he debates these subjects. In north-west Sutherland there are genuine conflicts between different groups whose interests are exceedingly difficult to reconcile. There are those who depend upon static gear catches of shellfish and there are the pelagic men who, in the same first three months of the year, are moving around in the inshore waters and sweeping away the static gear, often at night, when it will be untraceable afterwards. Those legitimate interests must be reconciled. The conflict of interests in the use of the water will present a judgment of Solomon to any Secretary of State who has to exercise the powers, but the reconciliation of such difficulties is very much more important to the economies of those fragile areas than some of the other matters alluded to by hon. Members representing landlocked constituencies south of the Border.
Parliament should consider the specific proposals that the Government have in mind to enact, and the House of Commons should have a real opportunity to discuss them. Although the provisions are subject only to the negative procedure, it is desirable that a good deal of time should be allowed for consideration of the proposals that the Minister may make.
Finally, I ask the Minister two questions. When does he intend to bring forward his first orders, and how much time will he allow us for discussing them?

Mr. John MacKay: This by-catch of a Third Reading debate has been most interesting. I shall speak as briefly as I can while answering the points raised, and shall divide my remarks into two parts: first, the question of salmon and, secondly, the static gear reserves and related matters.
I can tell my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr. Onslow), for Crawley (Mr. Soames), for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the Government are well aware of the problems connected with salmon, not only in Scotland but also on both sides of the north Atlantic. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent rural constituencies are well aware of the importance of salmon to the economy of many fragile areas from the point of view of angling and tourism and of the legitimate salmon netsman. I remind the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that many of them do some salmon fishing in the summer months to balance out the livelihood that they make from creel fishing in the winter. The salmon is important to many areas of Scotland.
We have had some debate on netting off the English coast. We also heard from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I noticed that, accidentally or because of the hour, it was handy for him that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) were safely absent from the Chamber at the time as otherwise we might have had an even longer debate. That might have been interesting. I am sure that it has been noted that ray hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been here throughout Third Reading and heard the arguments that have been advanced.

Mr. Beith: I am sure that the Minister will withdraw any criticism he might have intended of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, as he must be aware that the Committee on the Finance Bill is still sitting.

Mr. MacKay: Of course I accept that the Finance Bill is more important to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire than the parts of this Bill that affect salmon. I hope that my criticism was just a little tail wagging of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and their hon. Friend from the other side of the border.
As I have said, my hon. Friend the Minister has been here throughout this debate. He has recently met representatives of the Scottish salmon interests and has received written representations from the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards, underlining the points that the Scottish salmon interests have made. I know of the difficulties involved and that officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been asked to consider the effects of the north-east fishery and to examine all of the arguments. I shall leave the matter there as it concerns my hon. Friend more than me.
Everyone knows that tagging originated from an outline scheme of the salmon sales group in England and Wales. Although it might be easy to implement that proposal in England and Wales, it cannot be implemented quite as directly in Scotland where we have problems. For example, there are no regional water authorities or rod licences. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office has asked his Department of Agriculture and Fisheries to prepare outline schemes for how a tagging and licensing scheme might operate in Scotland. We have received written comments from several interests and had discussions. There is general support and sympathy for the idea of salmon tagging if some of the difficulties can be overcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking mentioned some of the difficulties that the salmon farming industry foresees if it is forced to tag.
I know that my hon. Friends will be pleased to hear that Ministries in Scotland and England are treating the matter seriously and are examining ways in which to resolve some of the difficulties. Any salmon tagging scheme must be cost effective in the broadest sense. It would be most unfortunate if we ended up with a tagging scheme that caused much bureaucracy and administration and did not prevent poaching. Any scheme must be watertight in that regard.

Mr. Onslow: I put it to my hon. Friend that some of the claims he made about the banning of the carriage of monofilament nets would probably not have quite the


impact on the stocks in Scottish rivers that he suggested and that he should bear in mind the impact of the north-east drift net fishery. I should like to hear what he thinks the impact of that fishery is on Scottish salmon fishing.

Mr. MacKay: That is one of the factors which the officials of my hon. Friend's Department will have to bear in mind. I understand the argument my hon. Friend makes about the rivers on the east coast. I have seen the figures which show that large numbers of fish caught in English waters are heading for Scottish waters. To be parochial for a moment, I think that the banning of the carriage of salmon nylon monofilament nets will have a considerable advantage for the rivers of the west coast. I may no longer need to think about going to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to catch fish, which over the last two or three years I have found was a fairly fruitless journey.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) took part in the debate, not for the first time beginning by telling us that he had not meant to speak and then going on to make that abundantly obvious.
I assure those hon. Members who mentioned the sea fish part of the Bill that I shall take note of the points they made in Committee about the importance of this legislation. Coming as I do from a constituency which has a longer coastline than that of France, with very many fishermen of both types—static gear men and active fishermen — I know the importance of this kind of legislation. There is a great welcome from many fishermen in my constituency and elsewhere for the final abolition of the three mile limit.
I point out to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), as we have said time and again, that if local

fishermen can come to us with an agreement for their area which we think—and this is important—will hold up I do not think we will be going down the road of orders. That should not be necessary if we can consult with them and be satisfied that they can agree.
But I caution him to listen to the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who highlighted the fact that on many parts of the Scottish coast there are real conflicts which it may not be possible to resolve by local agreements. In such cases I believe the Secretary of State has a duty to come to the House, after discussion with fishermen, with orders that will try to resolve some of the conflicts that have taken place in the waters off our coast and to make sure that those people whose livelihood is put at risk by the conflicts have the chance to fish and make a living in these fragile rural communities.
I look forward to the orders. I shall not predict when they will come. Once the Bill has completed its passage and received the Royal Assent, we can move on from the consultations which we are already engaged in with the fishing industry to the point where we can bring forward orders. I look forward to the orders when I am sure we will have more stimulating debates on this subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Bill [Lords], the Registered Homes Bill [Lords], and the Dentists Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, New Clauses, and New Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Dispute

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Mr. Dave Nellist: We shall debate for half an hour this evening the strike of the National Union of Mineworkers—a strike that has been the inspiration to the whole of the labour movement not just in Britain but internationally. It has resulted in several thousands of pounds being collected by trades councils and trade unions in both the north and the south of Ireland and solidarity from workers' organisations in many European countries, and I have no doubt that it will provide inspiration in the next few days when the 70,000 members of the National Union of Mineworkers in South Africa begin their strike struggle for decent wages.
This is the longest, bitterest, most important strike to take place in this country for 58 years and its implications are far reaching. When victory comes in the next few weeks it will give heart to millions of working people by showing that the Government can be taken on and beaten. The Government have not been able to inflict a defeat. At first, the Prime Minister hoped that the dispute would be an industrial Falklands in which she could renovate her tattered image, demoralise the miners and other working people and their organisations and pave the way for futher attacks. That now will not happen.
On numerous occasions in the past 13 weeks the Government said that they were not involved and that they would not intervene. Except on one occasion, they have refused to justify in debate in the House their reasons for causing the strike. I use those words deliberately because the Government have prepared for precisely this strike for a long time. They have aided and given succour to those at the top of the police organisations—the Association of Chief Police Officers—who have been waiting 12 years for revenge for Saltley gates.
The 13th floor of New Scotland Yard has been taken over for the National Reporting Centre and the largest police operation this century has been mounted against the miners and their families. Tens of thousands of police have been travelling up and down the country using Boeing 737s and stopping workers and pickets in cars and buses at road blocks. For example, just a few days ago a miner from Warwickshire was stopped on the way home from Yorkshire. His tyres, and his insurance, tax and other documents were checked and he was given a slip to hand in at the police station to produce his other documents within the requisite five days. The top of the slip was marked "(CHECK) (MINER)". In my area and in others up and down the country the police have files and maps with pins to mark the homes of picket organisers. It has been the largest police operation this century and the largest operation against industrial action.
The number of arrests has been massive. Up to 31 May there were 2,764 arrests in England and Wales and 518 in Scotland—3,282 workers arrested for trying to defend their right to a job. That must be the largest number of arrests in an industrial dispute at least since the mid-1920s. Until yesterday the Government had refused to give details of the offences with which those people were being charged. When I finally received the parliamentary answer, the reason became clear because in my view 80 per cent. of them were for spurious reasons. The aim was

simply to prevent the organisers of the picket action from effectively organising the strike. The 1,208 charges for breach of the peace, 806 for obstruction of a police constable and 348 for obstruction of the highway add up to more than 80 per cent. of the charges. The object was clearly to remove those people from active picket duty.
The bail conditions imposed then sought to prevent miners from attending marches, rallies, meetings or any picketing area other than their own place of work and in some cases even their own pit. Trial dates were set months ahead for July and August to stop those workers being active in the strike. It is reminiscent of the banning orders in South Africa — an attempt to place the picket organisers under effective house arrest. The massive police presence makes it clear that the Prime Minister used her recent meeting with Botha from South Africa to gain some tips to add to the banning orders and pass laws in British industrial legislation.
There are two kinds of law in British society. First, there are the largely self-imposed laws which we all uphold such as not running down a child on a zebra crossing or taking an axe to the next-door neighbour. Those are the kinds of laws that keep society in check and which every worker would obey. Then there are the class laws against working people which the Government sought to strengthen in 1980 and 1982 and which are sought to be administered by ex-Tory councillors now lords chief justices and enforced by a police force that has received a 119·6 per cent. pay rise in the past five years while young workers on youth training schemes have had a 50 per cent. cut in real take-home allowances in the same period.
The second area of the Government's preparation is to starve miners and their families back to work. They are experiencing real hardship and privation in my area and others because of the Government's activities. What a contrast it is when tonight, as on every night in this place, banquets are given downstairs for 50 or 60 people, while the families of striking miners have £15 a week taken from their strike pay and the food parcels given to them by sympathetic workers are deemed against their supplementary benefit. Their holiday pay has been removed from their pay this year. That will not work. The labour movement will make sure that miners' families are not forced to return to work because of the Government's policies of starvation.
The third area of preparation by the Government is in relation to coal stocks. Before the 1972 dispute, the then Tory Government doubled stocks at the pitheads and power stations. Between February 1981, when the south Wales miners in particular came out against closures and redundancies, and the present dispute the Government have carried out the same tactic. They have doubled the stocks at pitheads and power stations. Stocks rose to 58 million tonnes at the beginning of the overtime ban in November. Eight million tonnes were removed by the overtime ban and 24 million tonnes have been removed during the strike. There are only about 20 million tonnes of coal left.
The Government and the Prime Minister have attempted a cover up by refusing to answer questions about coal stocks. We have heard all of the statements about how many months the miners could stay on strike. They could stay out until Christmas if they wished, as it would not make an iota of difference. I remind the Minister who will be replying to the debate that his predecessors introduced


a three-day working week in 1974, when coal stocks reached 14·7 million tonnes. Coal stocks will be at that level in only a few weeks. That is why the National Coal Board is backing off and why British Rail has been told to settle its dispute with ASLEF and the NUR. That is why the negotiations are taking place.
The Government have tried to use oil to replace coal for the coal-fired power stations. Oil-fired power stations usually produce 7 per cent. of this country's electricity. Now they are producing 34 per cent. We have bought oil on the spot market in Amsterdam that is worth £200 million or more. That is a criminal waste of money in trying to beat the strike. Oil-fired power stations are operating far in excess of their manufacturers' specification. The repair and maintenance schedules for this summer and later will be severely hampered by the actions of the CEGB and the Government. The Government have stored up real problems in electricity generation for the coming months.
The Government have deliberately prepared for and provoked this virtual lock-out of NUM members. The preparations for the strike are well known. Five years ago the present Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), wrote a pamphlet, commonly referred to as the report bearing his name, on how to deal with strikes and how to tackle the organised working class. The section dealing with the mine workers says:
Build up coal stocks, particularly at power stations; make contingency plans for the import of coal; encourage hauliers to recruit non-union drivers; introduce dual coal oil firing in all power stations; cut off the money supply to strikers and make the union finance them; establish a large, mobile squad of police to deal with picketing.
Each of those preparations has been undertaken by the Government. Let us not hear any rubbish about the Government not preparing to tackle a strike.
The Government transferred Mr. MacGregor from the steel industry to the coal board after he had cut 85,000 jobs. That was a preparation. His withdrawal from the negotiations is a sign that the dispute is being won. When hon. Members and workers outside call Mr. MacGregor a butcher and the angel of death—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] It is not rubbish. I used to work for Leyland. He was on the board of directors and during his tenure of office 34,000 jobs went. When losses at British Steel are added to what he hopes to get away with at the NCB, his nine-year tenure in nationalised industries will have caused the loss of 200,000 jobs in Britain. He has received £250,000 in the past eight or nine years, and when he gets out of the industry he will pick up another £2·5 million in indirect fees. That is the preparation for the dispute.
I refer to the real costs inflicted on the country by the Government's actions. The Secretary of State for Energy said yesterday that £197 million had been added to the NCB's operating costs. That is rubbish. The true cost of the strike so far is £2,200 million. More has been spent in three months to break the NUM than the Government have spent in the past three years on investing in the industry. When one adds together the lost production, the cost of the police, the cost of oil and of stocks, and the interest charges on those stocks, it comes to over £2,000 million to be spent on breaking the union and trying to break the strike.
The strike is not just about 20 pits and 20,000 jobs. Reducing coal production to 97 million tonnes takes coal production in Britain back not five, 10 or 15 years, but to 1864. Some 120 years of the history of the coal industry will be sacrificed and a whole generation of miners will be wiped out by the Government's actions.
Last summer, Norman Siddall, the previous ruler of the NCB, admitted that the plan over the next couple of years was to sack 65,000 miners. When Arthur Scargill said that, he was called a liar. Since 1979, the Government have closed 46 pits and sacked 40,000 people from the industry. The real aim is to prepare the way for new technology, for the introduction of new seams in areas such as Selby, Warwickshire and Oxfordshire. There will be a reorganisation of the industry. The replacement of some 25 million tonnes with new capacity is mentioned in NCB documents. That means that 70 pits have to go and nearly 100,000 jobs are at risk. To do that, the NUM must be broken.
The Minister should add up the costs if one sacks 100,000 workers and another 85,000 jobs are lost in ancillary industries. How many hundreds or thousands of millions of pounds will it cost the country in redundancy pay, dole and supplementary benefit, lost tax and national insurance? The costs of the Government's action are horrendous.
The next layer of plans is the privatisation of pits such as the one where my brother-in-law works, at Selby. As with oil and gas, privatisation is the Government's real target. No pit is safe. I hope that that is one of the lessons that will be transmitted to the misguided few — the "minor irritants"— in Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire who continue to work while the vast majority are on strike. Their jobs and the jobs of their sons and daughters will be at risk if the NCB wins the dispute. It has admitted that in Nottinghamshire, by 1987, new technology will replace 44 per cent. of existing pit jobs. That means that more than 15,000 jobs are at risk.
The Government have tried yet another con. They told us that there will be no compulsory redundancies, but transfers. They are trying to create a generation of industrial gypsies, moving from pit to pit as the Government decide what pit is unprofitable and should be closed. What will the Minister tell the miners of Kent when the next redundancies hit that area? The nearest pits to Kent are in France. Will the Minister buy the boats for the miners' daily travel to France?
The Government are creating the grave diggers of their own system. They are politicising a new generation of young workers, particularly tens of thousands of young women who are fully behind the men in the mining industry. There were 58 million tonnes of coal at the pithead for power stations at the beginning of the dispute, in November last year. Those young workers can read in the papers of 50,000 pensioners dying of hypothermia during the winter, who had not enough food or fuel to keep up their body temperatures. They will realise what a crazy system capitalism is that builds up coal stocks and condemns pensioners to long and lingering deaths. That is poverty and desperation amid the production of plenty.
The miners are supposed to be unproductive, but they have increased productivity in recent years while the Tory Government killed off 20 per cent. of industry. That killing off of a fifth of industry has meant fewer factories, less steel, fewer cars and houses, and therefore less, in capitalist terms, need for coal. Capitalism means that


workers produce too much for that system to distribute, while 5 million workers live on the dole and are denied decent living standards.
This strike will be won. The miners won in 1972, 1974 and in 1981, and they will win in 1984. But many workers in and outside the industry—especially miners—are beginning to ask whether they must return in another three or four years to take on another Government who decide to close pits and sacrifice jobs. The answer, under a capitalist system, is yes. The Government have already turned Britain from what used to be called the workshop of the world into the warehouse of the world. The boom that we are told is happening at present—it could be more accurately called a boomlet, because there are still 4·5 million people on the dole—is disappearing, and in the next few months we shall head into another recession when the Government and their system will destroy more industrial capacity and factories, and will therefore call for less coal, steel and other goods to be produced in Britain.
When that happens, the jobs of workers will again be under threat and they will have to struggle and fight to preserve those jobs. They will have to struggle while we have nationalised industries where workers have no say, and where instead of workers and their organisations being in the majority we have vicious capitalist bosses such as MacGregor and Edwardes running nationalised industries. Through this lock-out the Government have created a new generation of trade unionists and Socialists, who have taken this dispute from the defensive and who have begun to argue for a restructuring of the industry by shortening the working week to four days and 30 hours, by retiring miners at 55 or earlier and giving their jobs to school leavers, by public ownership of the suppliers such as Dowty, Babcock and the others, by the cancellation of the debt charges by which the Government are screwing £400 million out of the industry this year, by the public ownership of banks, and by real worker control over nationalised industries.
The miners will go back in a few weeks' time with their heads held high, and the ramifications of this strike will lead directly to the sacking of MacGregor and to the replacement of the Prime Minister as the leader of the Tory party. I look forward to a replacement of capitalism by Socialism — to a system based not on profit, but on need, and to a system that guarantees jobs, homes, and free health, education and transport—for a Tory system cannot guarantee those things. The struggle has been immensely strengthened by bringing into industrial and political activity an entire new generation of young workers. The grave diggers of the Minister's system have been created by the folly of his Government's actions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): The House, which is well filled with Members on both sides, and my hon. Friends are here in significant numbers, has just listened to an extraordinary oration by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). I cannot claim that he was consistent as to what he wished me to answer, but as usual he made several unwarranted assertions, hyperbolic statements and accusations against the Government, my hon. Friends, the chairman of the National Coal Board and against the general activities of the day.
It would be right to make one or two observations on some things that the hon. Gentleman has said recently. I

observe that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), newly reappointed to the Front Bench to look after coal matters, and to whom I give an genuine welcome, is sitting in silence listening to the hon. Member, and well he might.
What the hon. Member has ignored is the essential part that the coal industry is to play in the economic development of the country. What the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to set at nought is the amount of investment and the amount of taxpayers' money that has been poured in by successive Administrations, including this one, in the support of that long eluded objective to see a profitable and effective coal industry developed in Britain.
May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what he has ignored? The investment in terms of per employee per year is £2,917 or, if he wishes, £71 per week for every man on colliery books. May I remind him of the fact, which he has ignored, that the total amount of grants that taxpayers are putting into the industry is £4,600 per employee per annum or, if he wishes, £112 per week for every man on colliery books? May I remind him of the fact, which he has ignored, that the deficit grant alone, which removes so much of the coal board's losses incurred on many of its activities, is £3,545 per employee per annum or, if he wishes, £86 per week per man on colliery books? The total, including the redundant mineworkers payments scheme, is currently per employee per annum £5,381 or, if he wishes, £131 per man per week on colliery books.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for this gross intervention in the industry to which he has been alluding. It is a gross intervention by the Government and by their predecessors in seeking to support the industry about which he has been talking in such an insidiously absurd way for the last 25 minutes.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he must look rationally at the problem with which the industry is now grappling. He has ignored, for example, the fact that there are 50,000 persons or more working in the coal industry today. He has ignored the fact that the right to work is one of the most cherished rights that many persons supporting the party of which he is a member have sought to establish over the years, and the right to work has been established at significant costs in many areas of the coalfields, not just in Nottinghamshire, but in Derbyshire, in Staffordshire, in Lancashire and certainly in Warwickshire.
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that within the coal industry there is a major dispute, and a position in which the National Union of Mineworkers, for the first time in the memory, I suspect, of the hon. Member for Midlothian, has not conducted a ballot prior to engaging in strike action. The consequence of that is that there is a major division within the National Union of Mineworkers unknown in the history of recent industrial relations in the coal industry.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, when all the problems have been resolved of this immediate difficulty, the coal industry will remain happily a rational industry, led by members in the National Coal Board who have the industry's future at heart. I am certain that the vast majority of those working in the coal industry will equally be fully rational about the crucial importance of the job that they do. They recognise, in area after area of the coal industry, that it is necessary to harness change if one wants progress. They also recognise how vitally important it is to look for future investment in pits from which there can be extracted coal at prices that the public and, indeed, the industrial consumer are willing to pay. They equally


recognise that, on the average cost of industrial coal in Britain of £46 per tonne, and the world cost, which is substantially lower than that, there is a major gap to be closed. I am convinced that the vast majority of the
industry is happy to bend to the task of closing that gap to demonstrate that there is a long-term viable future for British mining and for British miners.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.